ELAM, ancient country encompassing a large part of the Persian
plateau at the end of the 3rd millennium B.C.E. but reduced to the
territory of Susiana in the Achaemenid period. The name Elam is derived
from Greek Aylam, itself borrowed from Hebrew ┐[email protected]; the Elamites called
their country Ha(l)tamti/Hatamti "lord country," which the Akkadians
rendered Elamtu and the Sumerians designated with the ideogram NIM "high,
elevated."

For a long time scholars confused Elam with Susiana, equivalent to the
plain and lower Zagros foothills in the present Persian province of
KĘ[email protected]@n. Two important factors have recently modified this
understanding, however. First, Tal-e Malyan ([email protected]^[email protected]) in [email protected] has been
identified as the ancient center of the component kingdom of Anshan (q.v.;
Hansman; Lambert; Reiner, 1973b), and, second, it has been established
that Susa and Elam were distinct entities (Vallat, 1980). In fact, during
the several millennia of its history the limits of Elam varied, not only
from period to period, but also with the point of view of the person
describing it. For example, Mesopotamian sources permit establishment of a
relatively detailed map of Elam in the late 3rd millennium B.C.E., owing
in particular to the "Geography of Sargon of Akkad" (ca. 2300 B.C.E.;
Grayson; Vallat, 1991), a Neo-Assyrian representation of the extent of
Sargon's conquests. It seems that Mesopotamians in the late 3rd millennium
B.C.E. considered Elam to encompass the entire Persian plateau, which
extends from Mesopotamia to the Kav^r-e Namak and DaŠt-e [email protected] (see DESERT)
and from the Caspian (q.v.) to the Persian Gulf. Elamite cultural, if not
political, influence in that period extended far beyond those limits,
however, reaching Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the southern
shores of the Persian Gulf (Amiet, 1986). It should be emphasized that
during the last centuries of the 3rd millennium Susiana was sometimes a
political dependency of the Mesopotamian empires centered first on Akkad
and later on Ur and was included only for a brief period in the Elamite
confederation, which embraced the kingdoms of Awan (probably in the
Zagros), SimaŠki (in Assyrian łimaŠki; see Steve, 1989, p. 13 n. 1;
probably extending from [email protected] to the Caspian), and Anshan (the present
province of [email protected] with its natural outlet to the Persian Gulf in the
vicinity of [email protected]Šehr, q.v.). Furthermore, this entire definition was
Meso-potamian. For the people of the Persian plateau, Awanites and
SimaŠkians, Elam meant the country of Anshan (Vallat, 1980; idem, 1991;
idem, 1993).

When the Elamites, in alliance with the people of Susiana, brought an
end to the empire of Ur in 2004 B.C.E., they annexed Susiana, where the
Epartid, or sukkalmah, dynasty was founded by the ninth king of
SimaŠki; the dynasty thus had its origins on the plateau. It is difficult
to determine the eastern limits of the Epartid kingdom, but the decline of
its power in the 18th century B.C.E. (see below) probably led to a
reduction of influence in the east. As for the "kings of Anshan and Susa"
of the Middle Elamite period (1500-1100 B.C.E.), according to the
available documents, they controlled at least the territory of the
present-day provinces of KĘ[email protected]@n and [email protected] with [email protected]Šehr.

In the 1st millennium B.C.E. the spread of populations speaking
Indo-Iranian languages and dialects onto the Persian plateau forced the
Elamites to relinquish one area of their empire after another and to take
refuge in Susiana, which only then became coterminous with Elam. It is
this reduced territory that is referred to in the annals of AŠŠurbanipal
(q.v.; see, e.g., Aynard, pp. 38-61), the Achaemenid inscriptions
(Weissbach), and the Bible and Apocrypha (Daniel 8:2; Esdras 4:9).

Despite recent progress, Elamite history remains largely fragmentary.
Because there are few indigenous sources, attempts at reconstruction must
be based primarily on Mesopotamian documentation. By far the largest
proportion of the known Elamite texts have been excavated at Susa, a city
that, from its foundation ca. 4000 B.C.E., alternated between subjection
to Mesopotamian and Elamite power (Amiet, 1979). The earliest levels
excavated at the site furnished remarkable pottery that has no equivalent
in Mesopotamia, whereas in the succeeding period (levels 22-17 in the
excavations conducted by Le Brun, 1978, pp. 177-92) the archeological
material is identical with that of Mesopotamia in the Uruk period. From
about 3200 B.C.E. the influence of the Persian plateau can be observed in
the presence of numerical and then proto-Elamite tablets identical with
those found in smaller numbers at different sites on the plateau, as far
away as łahr-e [email protected]˛ta in S^[email protected] (Vallat, 1986). The proto-Elamite script
(see iii, below), which has defied all efforts to decipher it, remained in
use until about 2700 B.C.E., but it was in the little-known period that
followed, between the end of the Proto-Elamite period and the
establishment of the dynasty of Awan, that Elam began to emerge from
anonymity. The first attestation of the name of the kingdom is in a text
of the king Enmebaragesi of Kish, who ruled in about 2650 B.C.E. But it is
only from the beginning of the Akkadian period that Elam really enters
into history. In the following survey the variable orthography of proper
names has been standardized, in the interests of simplification.

The Old Elamite period (ca. 2400-1600 B.C.E.).

In the Old Elamite period three dynasties ruled in succession (Table 1). The kings of the first two, those of Awan and
SimaŠki, are mentioned in the king list from Susa of the Old Babylonian
period (Scheil, 1931). In this document twelve names are mentioned,
followed by the phrase "twelve kings of Awan," then by twelve more names
and the phrase "twelve SimaŠkian kings." In contrast to similar texts from
Mesopotamia, neither a regnal year nor any mention of parentage appears in
this simple document; nor is there any indication that the two lists are
exhaustive. But, despite the somewhat artificial character of this
document, some of the individuals mentioned are also known from other
sources, Susian or Mesopotamian. The third dynasty, that of the Epartids,
often called "of the sukkalmahs" because of the title borne by its
members, was contemporary with the Old Babylonian period in Mesopotamia.

The Awan dynasty (ca. 2400-2100 B.C.E.). The Awan dynasty was
partially contemporary with that of Sargon of Akkad (2334-2279 B.C.E.),
and its last king, Puzur-InŠuŠinak, is thought to have reigned in the time
of Ur-Nammu (2112-2095 B.C.E.), founder of the Third Dynasty of Ur
(Wilcke, p. 110). At that point the information in the sources becomes
more explicit, for the Mesopotamians were attracted by the natural riches
of the Persian plateau that they themselves lacked (wood, stone, metals).
The records of their military campaigns provide important indications for
the reconstruction of the history and geography of Elam.

Although nothing is known of the first seven kings enumerated in the
Old Babylonian king list, the eighth and ninth are mentioned (in inverse
order) in reports of the campaigns of Sargon and his son RimuŠ (Hirsch,
pp. 47-48, 51-52; Gelb and Kienast, pp. 180-81, 188, 206-07). The primary
purpose of these Akkadian expeditions was the economic exploitation of
Elamite territory, including MarahaŠi (Baluchistan, q.v. i-ii). It seems,
however, that they were raids, rather than real conquests of this vast
territory. The Akkadian king ManiŠtusu (2269-55 B.C.E.) continued to fight
in the south, where he achieved a victory at łehirum on the Persian Gulf,
which he then crossed in order to subdue an alliance of thirty-two cities
on the Arabian coast (Gelb and Kienast, pp. 220-21). In the reign of the
Akkadian Naram-Sin a treaty (K÷nig, 1965, no. 2) was concluded between
Naram-Sin's vassal ruling at Susa and a king of Awan, perhaps Hita
(Cameron, p. 34); it is the first known Elamite text to have been written
in cuneiform characters, but interpretation remains difficult.

The last king in the king list, Puzur-InŠuŠinak (Gelb and Kienast, pp.
321-37), conquered Susa, then Anshan, and he seems to have managed to
impose an initial unity on the Elamite federation by subduing also the
king of SimaŠki. His successors, however, were unable to hold Susa within
the Elamite sphere. Puzur-InŠuŠinak left several documents in his name at
Susa. Some are inscribed in Akkadian and others in linear Elamite, a
script of which only a few signs have been deciphered with certainty
(Vallat, 1986; see v, below); these signs may have been derived from
proto-Elamite. But the establishment of the Elamite kings at Susa was of
short duration. Several years later łulgi of Ur (2094-47) retook the city
with the surrounding region, which once again became an integral part of
the Mesopotamian empire and remained so until that empire collapsed.

The SimaŠki dynasty (ca. 2100-1970 B.C.E.). Of the twelve
SimaŠkian kings mentioned in the king list from Susa, nine have been
documented elsewhere (Stolper, 1982, pp. 42-67). The first part of this
period was characterized by incessant Meso-potamian attacks on the Persian
plateau; the principal objective, though rarely attained, seems to have
been SimaŠki, the homeland of the Elamite kings, in the area of modern
[email protected] These campaigns alternated with periods of peace, marked by
dynastic marriages. For example, łu-Sin of Ur, after having given one of
his daughters in marriage to a prince of Anshan, led at least two
expeditions to the southeastern coast of the Caspian (Kutscher, pp.
71-101). It seems that the Mesopotamians alternated between peaceful and
more forcible approaches, in order to obtain the raw materials they
needed. But Mesopotamian power was weakening. The last king of the dynasty
of Ur, Ibbi-Sin (2028-04), was unable to penetrate very deeply into
Elamite territory, and his agent Ir-Nanna no longer controlled more of the
eastern empire than the countries along a northwest-southeast line from
Arbela to BaŠime on the north bank of the Persian Gulf (Thureau-Dangin,
pp. 148-51). In 2004 the Elamites, allied with the "Susianans" under the
leadership of Kindattu, sixth king of SimaŠki, conquered Ur and led
Ibbi-Sin away to Elam as a prisoner.

The Epartid or sukkalmah dynasty (ca. 1970-1600 B.C.E.). This
long period of nearly three centuries still seems one of the most confused
in Elamite history, despite the greater abundance and variety of the
available documentation. Modern historians (K÷nig, 1931; Cameron, p. 229;
Hinz, p. 183) have been misled by three factors that have completely
distorted historical reconstruction.

First, the order of succession and the genealogy of the rulers of this
period were distorted by a misinterpretation of the expression "son of the
sister of łilhaha" (Ak. [email protected][email protected](-Šu) Ša łilhaha). It was
believed that the correct translation of [email protected][email protected] was "nephew,"
as in Mesopotamia, and that the term referred to a real biological
relationship. The result was a theory about the division of power between
the direct and collateral lines specific to Elam. The reality was quite
different: The words "son of the sister of łilhaha" do not mean "nephew"
but rather "son that łilhaha sired with his own sister" and are evidence
of royal incest, which ensured the legitimacy of the heir. Furthermore,
the expression was only a title, as is confirmed by its use for centuries
after the death of łilhaha, for example, by UntaŠ-NapiriŠa and
HutelutuŠ-InŠuŠinak. It may be added that this Akkadian expression was
rendered in Elamite as ruhu-Šak, ruhu meaning "son" when
referring to the mother and Šak "son" when referring to the father.
There is thus no question of the word "sister" (Vallat, 1990, p. 122;
idem, 1994).

A second factor, which played just as negative a role in historical
reconstruction as the first, is a text of łilhak-InŠuŠinak, who enumerated
those of his royal predecessors who had restored a temple of InŠuŠinak
(K÷nig, 1965, no. 48); the majority of historians have considered that
this enumeration provides a chronological scheme that has only to be
completed by insertion of the names of kings who are not mentioned in it.
Although generally early sovereigns are mentioned first in the text and
the most recent ones last, within each group there are obvious
contradictions with other documents. These distortions result from
enumeration according to lineages; sometimes the direct line is given,
then the collateral lines, but sometimes the collateral lines precede the
direct line, without relation to actual chronology. For the
sukkalmah period the order is Eparti (Ebarat), łilhaha, Siruk-tuh,
Siwe-palar-huppak, Kuk-KirmaŠ, Atta-huŠu, Temti-halki, and Kuk-NaŠur.
Although the sequence Eparti, łilhaha, Siruk-tuh, Siwe-palar-huppak in the
direct line is correct, the two kings mentioned next, Kuk-KirmaŠ and
Atta-huŠu, are not in the correct place, for they ruled between the reigns
of łilhaha and Siruk-tuh. Kuk-KirmaŠ was thus a collateral, as is
confirmed by the fact that in this list he is designated "son of Lankuku,"
an individual unknown elsewhere, who probably never ruled; it is probable
that he was the brother of a sukkalmah who died without a direct
heir or whose heir was too young to reign. Further confirmation comes from
the inscriptions of certain high functionaries who served him after having
been in the service of Idaddu II, tenth king of SimaŠki. He could thus not
have reigned in the 15th century B.C.E., as had been incorrectly supposed.
Temti-halki and Kuk-NaŠur, the last two sukkalmahs known, were
probably in the direct line.

Finally, an inscription of Atta-huŠu (Sollberger, 1968-69, p. 31;
Vallat, 1989, no. 101) has been considered as evidence that Eparti,
łilhaha, and Atta-huŠu were contemporaries, constituting the first
"triumvirate" of the dynasty. In fact, from different documents,
particularly cylinder seals (q.v.) of servants of these sovereigns, it is
possible to demonstrate (Vallat, 1989, no. 34) that between łilhaha and
Atta-huŠu six sukkalmahs or sukkals exercised power:
Pala-iŠŠan, Kuk-KirmaŠ, Kuk-sanit, Tem-sanit, Kuk-Nahhunte, and Kuk-NaŠur
I, a group that reigned in the 20th century B.C.E. and not in the 16th
century, as most commentators have believed (e.g., Hinz and Koch, p. 555).

Taking into account the corrected interpretations on these three
points, it is possible today to write a coherent, though incomplete,
history of the Epartid dynasty. The SimaŠkian kings who succeeded Kindattu
were installed at Susa after the fall of the empire of Ur. The SimaŠkians
Idaddu I and Tan-Ruhurater II (who married Mekubi, daughter of Bilalama of
EŠnunna in Mesopotamia) built or restored temples at Susa. But Eparti II,
though named as the ninth SimaŠkian king in the king list, was the founder
of a new dynasty, called the Epartids by modern historians. It is
surprising that the first Epartid sovereigns reigned at the same time as
the last "SimaŠkian kings," Idaddu II, Idaddu-napir, and probably
Idaddu-temti. Eparti, the first of his dynasty, was at least partially
contemporary with the sukkalmah-sukkal group (see below);
the second, łilhaha, is mentioned in two documents from the time of
Atta-huŠu, contemporary with Sumu-abum (1894-81 B.C.E.), the first king of
the first dynasty of Babylon. The last Epartid, Idaddu-temti, is known
only from the king list. It is not known how power was divided, for,
although Idaddu II and Idaddu-napir are attested at Susa, Kuk-KirmaŠ bore
the title, among others, "sukkal of Elam, of SimaŠki, and of Susa"
(Thureau-Dangin, pp. 182-83), which implies that he ruled the entire
Elamite confederation. Despite these titles, it is probable that the last
SimaŠkians governed the eastern part of the empire while the first
Epartids governed the western part.

At any rate Eparti, łilhaha, and their immediate successors lived in
troubled times. Rulers of several Mesopotamian states attempted to retake
Susa from the Elamites. Several raids are known, particularly those of
Gungunum of Larsa, and it was perhaps because of such a raid that
Atta-huŠu seized power. In fact, there are several indications that he was
a usurper: Unlike all his predecessors and successors Atta-huŠu was not
associated with any other sovereign in the economic and juridical
documents. His titles, too, are unusual. Although he called himself "son
of the sister of łilhaha," it was probably in order to legitimate himself
a posteriori; he also bore the title "shepherd of the people of Susa,"
which no other dynast during that period assumed, with the exception of a
certain Tetep-mada, who may have been his successor.

The name of Siruk-tuh, which appears on a tablet from łemŠarra, permits
linkage of Elamite history with Mesopotamian chronology, for he was
contemporary with the Assyrian łamŠi-Adad I (1813-1781 B.C.E.). But the
best-known sukkalmah of the dynasty is Siwe-palar-huppak, who for
at least two years was the most powerful person in the Near East.
According to the royal archives of Mari, kings as important as Zimri-Lim
of Mari and Hammurabi of Babylon addressed him as "father," while calling
each other "brother" and using the word "son" for a king of lesser rank
(Charpin and Durand). But the interventions of Siwe-palar-huppak and his
brother and successor, Kudu-zuluŠ, in Mesopotamian affairs (as far away as
Aleppo) did not last long (Durand, 1986; idem, 1990; Charpin, 1986; idem,
1990). Siwe-palar-huppak's suzerainty was broken by an alliance led by
Hammurabi, which put an end to Elamite ambitions in Mesopotamia.

The reigns of Kutir-Nahhunte I and his thirteen successors as
sukkalmah or sukkal down to Kuk-NaŠur III, the last known
sukkalmah, are documented only in the juridical and economic
records from Susa (Scheil, 1930; idem, 1932; idem, 1933; idem, 1939) and
in some rare royal inscriptions (Thureau-Dangin, pp. 184-85; Sollberger
and Kupper, pp. 262-64). These documents suggest that daily life in Susa
and Elam was quite insular. Although no military activity is noted in the
documents, it is astonishing that so many royal or princely names are
attested at the same time. For example, Kutir-Nahhunte is associated with
five potential heirs: Atta-mera-halki, Tata, Lila-irtaŠ, Temti-Agun, and
Kutir-łilhaha; only the last two, however, attained supreme power, the
status of sukkalmah. Following them Kuk-NaŠur II, a contemporary of
Ammisßaduqa, king of Babylon (1646-26 B.C.E.); Temti-raptaŠ; Simut-wartaŠ
II; KuduzuluŠ II; and Sirtuh exercised power in an order that cannot yet
be established with certainty, despite association with royal names in the
texts. The three last known sukkalmahs, Tan-Uli and his two sons
Temti-halki and Kuk-NaŠur III, all three of whom were styled "son of the
sister of łilhaha," constituted a group that is linked by no document to
its predecessors. These different factors raise the question whether,
during the second half of this period, palace intrigues had not replaced
international conflicts.

This dynasty, which was remarkable for its duration, was also
characterized by a progressive "semitization" of the royal line; owing to
the annexation of Susiana to the Elamite empire, the sukkalmahs
ensured that Susa would remain a major center. This process is reflected
in different spheres. For example, the Elamites did not impose their
language on the Susians; the vast majority of the documents from this
period excavated at Susa, most of them juridical or economic texts related
to daily life in the name of the sukkalmah or a sukkal, were
written in Akkadian. Similarly, the Susians preserved their
Suso-Mesopotamian pantheon, at the head of which was InŠuŠinak, the
tutelary divinity of the city (see vi, below). Gods of Elamite origin were
rare. Finally, this semitization, or westernization, is illustrated by the
titulary. The title "king of Anshan and Susa" borne by Eparti, the founder
of the dynasty, was soon abandoned in favor of titles that had belonged to
Mesopotamian functionaries posted in Susiana or Elam during the Ur III
period. The supreme power was held by the sukkalmah. It happened
that the ruler delegated certain powers to his children, who were then
given the title "sukkal of Elam and of SimaŠki" while in charge of
the eastern provinces of the empire and "sukkal of Susa" when
governing Susiana. This last title could be replaced by "king of Susa."

It is thus necessary to set aside the theory of the division of Elamite
power (Cameron, pp. 71-72). The succession to the throne was based on male
primogeniture, with, however, an important additional element: the
different degrees of legitimacy exemplified by the primacy of endogamy
over exogamy. The child born to a union of the king with an Elamite
princess, that is, a foreigner, was legitimate. The child born to a union
of the king with his own sister had a higher degree of legitimacy. An
elder son born to the marriage of a sovereign with a princess outside the
family (exogamy) thus had to cede the throne to a younger brother born to
a later union of the king and his sister (endogamy). The supreme degree of
legitimacy was accorded to the son born to a union of the king with his
own daughter. That was the case some centuries later with
HutelutuŠ-InŠuŠinak, who seems to have been the son of łutruk-Nahhunte by
his daughter Nahhunte-utu (Vallat, 1985). In the eventuality that a
sovereign had no male heir or an heir was too young to exercise power
then, as often elsewhere, power was secured by a collateral branch
(Vallat, 1994).

The association of a "sukkal of Elam and of SimaŠki" and a
"sukkal of Susa" with the supreme authority of the sukkalmah
was not the rule. It sometimes happened, however, that the king associated
his children in power for practical reasons: It is probable that, as in
the Achaemenid period, the court left the extreme heat of Susa in summer
and took refuge on the more temperate plateau. It was thus prudent to
leave a trusted man in charge of the low countries.

The Middle Elamite period (ca. 1500-1100 B.C.E.).

The Middle Elamite period was marked by a sharp reversal from the
preceding period. It was, in fact, characterized by an "elamization" of
Susiana. The kings (Table 2) abandoned the title sukkalmah or
sukkal in favor of the old title "king of Anshan and of Susa" (or
"king of Susa and of Anshan" in the Akkadian inscriptions). The Akkadian
language, still in use under the first family of rulers, the Kidinuids,
became rare in the inscriptions of the later Igihalkids and łutrukids.
Furthermore, in this period the Elamite pantheon was imposed in Susiana
and reached the height of its power with the construction of the
politicoreligious complex at ┘[email protected] Zanb^l (q.v.).

The "dynasty" of the Kidinuids (ca. 1500-1400 B.C.E.). The term
"dynasty" for the Kidinuids is perhaps improper, for there is no
indication of any filial relationship among the five rulers who succeeded
one another in an order that is not yet certain: Kidinu,
InŠuŠinak-sunkir-nappipir, Tan-Ruhurater II, łalla, and Tepti-Ahar (Steve,
Gasche, and De Meyer, pp. 92-100). Susa and Haft Tepe (ancient Kabnak)
have furnished evidence (Reiner, 1973b; Herrero) of a break between the
period of the sukkalmahs and the Middle Elamite period. The first
element was the titulary: Kidinu and Tepti-ahar styled themselves "king of
Susa and of Anzan," thus linking themselves with an old tradition. Both
also called themselves "servant of KirwaŠir," an Elamite divinity, thus
introducing the pantheon from the plateau into Susiana. As in the
preceding period, however, they continued to use Akkadian in all their
inscriptions.

The Igihalkid dynasty (ca. 1400-1210 B.C.E.). Until quite
recently the Igihalkid dynasty seemed one of the best known in Elamite
history. It was believed (e.g., Stolper, 1984, pp. 35-38) that, following
a raid by the Mesopotamian Kassite ruler Kurigalzu II (1332-08 B.C.E.)
against a certain Hurpatila, king of Elam, Igi-halki seized power, in
about 1320, power that he than passed on to his six successors, the most
celebrated of whom was UntaŠ-NapiriŠa, who built the famous ziggurat at
┘[email protected] Zanb^l (ca. 1250). This period ended with Kidin-Hutran, who put an
end to the grandeur of the Kassites by winning two victories over
Enlil-nadin-Šumi (1224) and Adad-Šuma-iddina (1222-17).

Combined information from a letter now in the Vorderasiatisches Museum,
Berlin (Van Dijk, 1986) and two fragments of a statue rediscovered in the
Louvre (Steve and Vallat, pp. 223-38) has, however, led to a complete
revision of this scheme. The letter in Berlin is a Neo-Babylonian document
written in Akkadian, whereas the statue fragments contain an inscription
in Elamite. The letter was addressed by an Elamite king whose name is lost
but who may well have been łutruk-Nahhunte (see below) to assert his claim
to rule Babylonia; the name of the person to whom it was addressed is also
not preserved in the letter. In support of his claim the king mentioned
the names of all the Elamite kings who had married Kassite princesses,
followed by the names of the children born of these unions. For example,
the immediate successor of Igi-halki, Pahir-iŠŠan, married the sister or
daughter of Kurigalzu I, whose reign ended in 1374 B.C.E., which implies
that the Igihalkid dynasty was older by about a century than had
previously been thought. Furthermore, two previously unknown kings,
Kidin-Hutran, son of UntaŠ-NapiriŠa (who could not have been the
Kidin-Hutran who fought the Kassites), and his son NapiriŠa-untaŠ, are
mentioned in this text. As the fragments of the Louvre statue are
attributed to another Kidin-Hutran, son of Pahir-iŠŠan, there must have
been three kings of the same name in this dynasty: Kidin-Hutran I, son of
Pahir-iŠŠan; Kidin-Hutran II, son of UntaŠ-NapiriŠa; and Kidin-Hutran III,
whose paternity is unknown. The number of kings known to have succeeded to
the Elamite throne has thus been raised from seven to ten, without any
certainty that the list is complete. In fact, the first surviving
description of this dynasty occurs in a text of the łutrukid
łilhak-InŠuŠinak (K÷nig, 1965, no. 48), in which he enumerated those of
his predecessors who had restored a temple of InŠuŠinak. As for the Berlin
letter, only the dynasts who married Kassite princesses or their children
are mentioned in it. A king who belonged in neither of these two
categories would remain unknown. Finally, it can now be confirmed that
Hurpatila was not an Elamite king but king of a country known as Elammat
(Gassan).

The main characteristic of this dynasty is to have "elamized" Susiana;
the religious complex at ┘[email protected]@ Zanb^l, ancient Dur-UntaŠ (or A┌l
UntaŠ-NapiriŠa), is evidence of this policy, which had been initiated
under the "Kidinuids." Whereas the Epartids had adopted their titulary,
gods, and language from the Susians, the Igihalkids emphasized the Elamite
aspect of Susiana. Documents written in Akkadian are thus especially rare
from their rule, and most are only curses against those who might tamper
with dedicated works, as if such outrages could come only from
Mesopotamia. Second, the old royal title "king of Anshan and of Susa" was
revived. Finally and most important, the gods of the plateau appeared in
force in Susiana. For example, the attitude of UntaŠ-NapiriŠa at ┘[email protected]
Zanb^l is revealing. The king began by constructing a small ziggurat in
the middle of a courtyard 105 m2 surrounded by temples. This first
ziggurat bore the obligatory dedication to the tutelary god of Susa and
Susiana, InŠuŠinak. But very quickly the king changed his mind and
undertook construction of a large ziggurat. The small one was destroyed,
and the buildings that surrounded the square courtyard were incorporated
in the first story of the new monument, which consisted of five stories,
each smaller in area than the one below (Ghirshman; Amiet, 1966, pp.
344-49). It must be emphasized that the new building was dedicated jointly
to NapiriŠa, the principal god of Anshan, and to InŠuŠinak, who was always
mentioned second, or even third when KiririŠa, the associate of NapiriŠa,
was also named. The primacy of the Elamite component over that of Susa was
thus reflected on the divine plane. But the situation was even more
complex. Within three concentric walls at ┘[email protected] Zanb^l temples were
constructed for different gods of the new Suso-Elamite pantheon, and it
seems that all the constituent elements in the Elamite confederation were
represented (Steve, 1967). For example, Pinikir, Humban, KirmaŠir, and
Nahhunte probably belonged to the Awanite pantheon, whereas Ruhurater and
HiŠmitik were of SimaŠkian origin. Among the Anshanite gods the pair
NapiriŠa and KiririŠa, as well as Kilah-Šupir and Manzat, can be
mentioned. Other divinities of Suso-Mesopotamian origin, like InŠuŠinak,
IŠmekarab, Nabu, łamaŠ, and Adad, helped to establish a balance between
Elamite and Susian power. The creation of this city from nothing had more
a political than a religious character, for it implied the cultural and
political subjugation of Susiana by the old Elamite confederation.
Curiously, this huge complex was quickly abandoned. No king other than
UntaŠ-NapiriŠa left his name there, and łutruk-Nahhunte reported having
carried some inscriptions from Dur-UntaŠ to Susa. Nothing is known of the
two immediate successors of UntaŠ-NapiriŠa, Kidin-Hutran II and
NapiriŠa-UntaŠ. The campaigns led by the last sovereign of the dynasty,
Kidin-Hutran III, against the Kassite kings Enlil-nadin-Šumi and
Adad-Šuma-iddina of Babylonia are evidence that the good relations that
had existed between the two royal families had quickly deteriorated.

The łutrukid dynasty (ca. 1210-1100 B.C.E.). Under the łutrukids
Susa regained its greatness, which had been somewhat eclipsed by ┘[email protected]
Zanb^l, and Elamite civilization shone in all its glory. The riches of
łutruk-Nahhunte and his three sons and successors, Kutir-Nahhunte II,
łilhak-InŠuŠinak, and HutelutuŠ-InŠuŠinak permitted these new "kings of
Anshan and of Susa" to undertake frequent military expeditions against
Kassite Mesopotamia and to embellish the Elamite empire and particularly
Susiana with luxuriously restored temples.

łutruk-Nahhunte, son of HallutuŠ-InŠuŠinak, perhaps following the
Babylonian rejection of the Elamite claims to sovereignty in the Berlin
letter discussed above, undertook several campaigns against Mesopotamia,
whence he carried off a number of trophies, which he had inscribed with
his name. It is thus known that he raided Akkad, Babylon, and EŠnunna,
from the last of which he carried off the statues of ManiŠtusu. It was he
who brought to Susa such renowned documents as the code of Hammurabi and
the stele of Naram-Sin. In 1158 B.C.E. he killed the Kassite king,
Zababa-Šuma-iddina, and placed his own eldest son, Kutir-Nahhunte, on the
throne of Babylon. When łutruk-Nahhunte died Kutir-Nahhunte succeeded him
and continued his policy in Mesopotamia, putting an end to the long
Kassite dynasty by deposing Enlil-nadin-ahi (1157-55 B.C.E.). He reigned
only a short time before he was succeeded by his brother łilhak-InŠuŠinak,
who left a large number of inscriptions in Elamite, recording his numerous
campaigns against Mesopotamia, on one hand, and, on the other, dedicating
to the gods temples that he built or restored; for example, on one stele
twenty temples "of the grove" in Susiana and Elam are mentioned (K÷nig,
1965, no. 48). The last king of the dynasty, HutelutuŠ-InŠuŠinak, who
called himself sometimes "son of Kutir-Nahhunte and of łilhak-InŠuŠinak"
and sometimes "son of łutruk-Nahhunte, of Kutir-Nahhunte, and of
łilhak-InŠuŠinak," was probably a son of łutruk-Nahhunte by his own
daughter, Nahhunte-utu (Vallat, 1985, pp. 43-50; idem, 1994), apparently
another example of incest in the royal Elamite family. Less brilliant than
his predecessors, HutelutuŠ-InŠuŠinak had to abandon Susa briefly to
Nebuchadnezzar (1125-04 B.C.E.). He took refuge at Anshan, where he built
or restored a temple (Lambert; Reiner, 1973b), then returned to Susa,
where his brother łilhina-amru-Lagamar may have succeeded him. With this
king Elamite power faded from the political scene for a long time.

The Neo-Elamite Period (1100-539 B.C.E.).

The essential element that distinguished the Neo-Elamite period was the
massive arrival of Iranians on the Iranian plateau, which had the result
of reducing still further what remained of the former Elamite empire.
Although these invaders appeared only late in the Elamite texts, they were
documented in Assyrian sources, where two groups of Medes were
distinguished: the Medes or "powerful Medes" and the "distant Medes" or
"Medes who live beside Mount Bikni, the mountain of lapis lazuli." The
first group, which occupied the region around Ecbatana (q.v.; modern
[email protected]), was well-known because of its frequent and often warlike
contacts with the Assyrians, but the second group, which encompassed all
the tribes that held territories between the region around modern Tehran
and eastern Afghanistan was not; the Achaemenids (and following them
Herodotus) designated the latter group by their proper names: Parthians,
Sagartians, Arians, Margians, Bactrians, Sogdians, and probably
neighboring peoples. In the Assyrian annals, however, all these Iranian
tribes were confused under the general appellation "distant Medes." An
identification of Mount Bikni with [email protected] (q.v.; Cameron, p. 149) or
Alvand (Levine, 1974, pp. 118-19) must thus be rejected. An identification
with the sources of lapis lazuli in Badak˛Šan was not only credited by
some classical authors but also lends a certain coherence to history,
whether recorded by Assyrians, Elamites, or Iranians (Vallat, 1993).

The slow progression of the Medes and the Persians across the plateau
pushed the Elamites in the region of Anshan toward Susiana, which had been
the second center of their empire for almost a millennium and a half. The
country of Anshan gradually became Persia proper while Susiana thenŚand
only thenŚbecame known as Elam. In most sources of the period,
particularly those from Mesopotamia, Susiana is designated as Elam.
Nevertheless, the Neo-Elamite kings (Table 3) still called themselves "king of Anshan and of
Susa," except for the last three, Ummanunu, łilhak-InŠuŠinak II, and
Tepti-Humban-InŠuŠinak.

Neo-Elamite I (ca. 1100-770 B.C.E.). No Elamite document from
this first phase of two and a half centuries provides any historical
information. The tablets from Malyan (Stolper, 1984), which M.-J. Steve
(1992, p. 21) attributes to the beginning of the period, reveal that
Anshan was still at least partially Elamite, for almost all the
individuals mentioned in them had names of Elamite origin. Mesopotamian
tablets from the same period offer very little additional information; it
is known only that the Babylonian king Mar-biti-apla-usßur (984-79 B.C.E.)
was of Elamite origin and that Elamite troops fought on the side of the
Babylonian king Marduk-balassu-iqbi against the Assyrian forces under
łamŠi-Adad V (823-11 B.C.E.).

Neo-Elamite II (ca. 770-646 B.C.E.). Only after the middle of
the 8th century B.C.E. does the Babylonian Chronicle (Grayson, 1975)
provide the elements of a historical framework, particularly the role of
Elam in the conflicts between Babylonians and Assyrians. The king
Humban-nikaŠ (743-17 B.C.E.), son of Humban-tahra and brother of
Humban-umena II, came to the aid of Merodach-baladan against the Assyrian
Sargon II, which seems to have had little permanent result, as his
successor, łutruk-Nahhunte II (716-699), son of Humban-umena II, had to
flee from Sargon's troops during an attempt on the region of [email protected] in 710.
The Elamite was again defeated by Sargon's troops two years later; finally
he was beaten by Sargon's son Sennacherib, who dethroned Merodach-baladan
and installed his own son AŠŠur-nadin-Šumi on the throne of Babylon.
łutruk-Nahhunte was then murdered by his brother HalluŠu, mentioned in the
Babylonian Chronicle (698-93). After several skirmishes with the troops of
Sennacherib, HalluŠu was assassinated and replaced by Kudur, who quickly
abdicated the throne in favor of Humban-umena III (692-89). Humban-umena
recruited a new army, including troops from Ellipi, ParsumaŠ, and Anshan,
in order to assist the Babylonians in the battle against the Assyrians at
Halule on the Tigris in 691. Each side proclaimed itself the victor, but
Babylon was taken by the Assyrians two years later. Elamite relations with
Babylonia began to deteriorate during the reign of Humban-haltaŠ II
(680-75), son of Humban-haltaŠ I (688-81), which may explain why his
brother and successor, Urtak (674-64), at first maintained good relations
with the Assyrian king AŠŠurbanipal (668-27), who helped him by sending
wheat during a famine. But peaceable relations with Assyria also
deteriorated, and it was after a new Elamite attack on Mesopotamia that
the king died. He was replaced on the throne by Te-Umman (664-53 B.C.E.).
The new king was the object of a new attack by Assurbanipal, who, after
the battle of the Ula´ in 653, put an end to the king's life. After this
victory AŠŠurbanipal installed in power the son of Urtak, who had taken
refuge in Assyria. Humban-nikaŠ II (Akkadian UmmanigaŠ) was installed at
Madaktu, an advance post toward Mesopotamia, and Tammaritu at Hidalu, a
retreat in the eastern mountains on the road to Anshan. These two towns
thus functioned as capitals from the beginning of the 7th century, to the
detriment of Susa. The war that broke out between AŠŠurbanipal and his
brother łamaŠ-Šum-ukin, whom he had installed on the throne of Babylon,
provided some respite for the Elamites, who profited from it to fight
among themselves. Tammaritu captured the throne of Humban-nikaŠ II and was
in turn driven out to Assyria by IndabigaŠ, who was himself killed by
Humban-haltaŠ III in 648. The collapse of the Elamite kingdom seems even
clearer when it is realized that a certain Umba-habua reigned at Bupila
and that Pa'e was called "king of Elam" at B^t-Imbi. The coup de grace,
however, was delivered by AŠŠurbanipal in 646, when he sacked Susa after
having devastated the whole of Susiana (Streck; Aynard; Grayson, 1975).

The defeat of the Elamites was, however, less devastating than
AŠŠurbanipal made it appear in his annals, for after his victory the
Elamite kingdom rose from the ashes with łutur-Nahhunte, son of
Humban-umena III.

Neo-Elamite III (646-539?B.C.E.). So far nothing has been known
about the century between the sack of Susa by AŠŠurbanipal in 646 and the
conquest of Susiana, thus of Elam, by the Achaemenids, perhaps by Cyrus in
539. This apparent gap in the history was owing in fact to two errors of
interpretation by modern scholars, who, first, considered that the
Neo-Elamite kings łutruk-Nahhunte, son of Humban-umena; łutur-Nahhunte,
son of Humban-umena; and sometimes even łutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada,
were the names of a single sovereign (Hinz, 1964, pp. 115-20). Now, it is
possible to show that they belonged to three different individuals. The
first, who reigned from 717 to 699, is known from the Mesopotamian
sources. He was the son of Humban-umena II (ca. 743), whereas
łutur-Nahhunte was the son of Humban-umena III (692-89) and reigned after
the fall of Susa. As for łutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada, he was a petty
king in the region of ╚za/[email protected]^r in the first half of the 6th century
(Vallat, 1995).

The second error of interpretation was to have considered the names of
the Elamite kings mentioned in the Mesopotamian documents as simple
distortions of the names of kings known from their inscriptions at Susa.
For example, it was believed that the name łutruk-Nahhunte was rendered
łutur-Nahhunte in Assyria and IŠtar-hundu in Babylonia. Again, it can be
demonstrated from internal analysis of the Elamite documents that these
identifications are erroneous and that, with the exception of
łutruk-Nahhunte II, all the Neo-Elamite kings known from Susian
inscriptions reigned after AŠŠurbanipal's sack of Susa (Vallat, 1996).

For this period no text furnishes a synchronism with Mesopotamia.
Nevertheless, one group of more than 300 tablets (Scheil, 1909) can be
dated by the iconography of their seal impressions to the first quarter of
the 6th century. Analysis of the language of these documents, which was no
longer classical but not yet Achaemenid, reveals details that permit a
chronology in relation to other inscriptions. In addition, on one of these
tablets a king (Ummanunu) and on another the name of Humban-kitin, who was
probably the son of łutur-Nahhunte, are mentioned (Vallat, 1995). It is
thus possible to locate the reigns of łutur-Nahhunte, son of Humban-umena
III; HallutaŠ-InŠuŠinak, son of Humban-tahra II; and
Atta-hamiti-InŠuŠinak, son of Hutran-tepti in the second half of the 7th
century. Ummanunu, who is mentioned in the tablets from the Acropolis,
appears to have been the father of łilhak-InŠuŠinak II, himself the father
of Tepti-Humban-InŠuŠinak. These three individuals ruled in succession
between 585 and about 539, at a time when Elamite royalty seems to have
been fragmented among different small kingdoms, though it is not possible
to determine that there was any sort of vassal relationship with the king
of Susa. It is thus known that łutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada ruled in the
region of [email protected]^r; Humban-Šuturuk, son of łati-hupiti, probably in the
region of Kesat in what was later Elymais; and the first Achaemenids over
the city of Anshan. It is interesting to note that the three kings at the
end of the 7th century (łutur-Nahhunte, HallutaŠ-InŠuŠinak, and
Atta-hamiti-InŠuŠinak) still called themselves "king of Anzan and of Susa"
or "enlarger of the kingdom of Anzan and of Susa," whereas Ummanunu and
łilhak-InŠuŠinak II bore the simple title "king," without any further
specification, and Tepti-Humban-InŠuŠinak did not even allude to his royal
position! This last known king of Elam did boast, however, of having led a
campaign in the Zagros.

The Achaemenid period (539-331 B.C.E.).

With the Achaemenids in general and Darius I (q.v.) in particular Susa
regained its previous greatness, but Elam lost its independence, becoming
the third "province" of the empire, after Persis and Media. Curiously, in
that period, though the country was called Elam (Elamite Hatamtu, Akkadian
NIM) in the sources, in Old Persian it was called Susiana (Uja). Susa
eclipsed the other capitals, like Anshan and Pasargadae, in Cyrus' time
and even Persepolis, founded by Darius himself, and Ecbatana. It is
striking, for example, that officials traveling to such distant
destinations as Egypt, India, or Arachosia departed from Susa and returned
to Susa, as confirmed in numerous archival tablets found at Persepolis
(Hallock, nos. 1285-1579). Furthermore, these documents were written in
Elamite, as if Darius had wished to make use of a class of scribes
belonging to an already existing administration. The majority of royal
inscriptions were written in Old Persian, Akkadian, and Elamite versions,
but Elamite had by then absorbed Iranian influences in both structure and
vocabulary. The Elamite gods, after having benefited from a final revival
of the cult under Darius and Xerxes, disappeared forever from the
documents. Elam was absorbed into the new empire, which changed the face
of the civilized world at that time.

The archeological use of the term "Elam" is based on a loose unity
recognizable in the material cultures of the period 3400-525 B.C.E. at
Susa in KĘ[email protected]@n, at Anshan (q.v.) in [email protected], and at sites in adjacent
areas of the Zagros mountains, particularly in the modern provinces of
[email protected], [email protected], and [email protected] (Figures 1, 2; Carter, 1984, p. 103).
Text-based definitions (see i, above; cf. Steinkeller, 1988; idem, 1990)
often lead to interpretations that are at odds with those derived from the
study of material culture. This article is based on evidence from
controlled excavations and surveys in the geographically diverse areas
called Elam in a general cultural sense, though not in a more precise
geographical sense. Most of the archeologically excavated material comes
from the large site of Susa.

The archeological record.

Susa was excavated almost continuously from the late nineteenth century
until the Persian revolution of 1357 ł./1978. Both Jacques de Morgan and
Robert de Mecquenem, the successive directors of the French archeological
mission from 1897 to 1946, were trained as mining engineers and brought
that background of large-scale earth removal to archeology. They were also
uninterested in the excavation of mud-brick buildings and little concerned
with archeological contexts and associations. Roman Ghirshman, director
from 1946 to 1967, adopted the "organic" method of excavation, clearing
large areas of mud-brick buildings, in order to gain an idea of the overall city plan in the 2nd millennium B.C.E.
Controlled stratigraphic excavations at the site began only in the 1960s,
when first M.-J. Steve and then Jean Perrot became directors of the French
archeological mission at Susa. Although large numbers of objects were
found in earlier campaigns, the relative chronology of this material has
only recently been established (Carter, 1992, pp. 20-24). Other
excavations, in KĘ[email protected]@n, [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected], have been so
much smaller in scale and shorter in duration that comparisons with Susa
are difficult (for summaries of these smaller excavations and surveys in
both KĘ[email protected]@n and the highlands, as well as comprehensive
bibliographies, see Carter, 1984, pp. 108-10; Hole, 1987, pp. 293-321).

The setting.

Elam was distinct from the contemporary civilizations of Sumer and the
Indus valley in the episodic cultural and political integration of large
expanses of geographically diverse territory. The lines of communication
between Susa and Anshan, the largest cities of Elam, as well as with
other, more distant mountain regions, were limited in number and generally
difficult, owing to rugged topography. Neither Susa nor Anshan was
centrally located in its own region or lay directly on major international
trade routes; both could easily be bypassed through the Persian Gulf, on
the sea route between Mesopotamia and the Indus valley. Susiana, the plain
in which Susa is located, was the only large lowland region in Elam, an
extension of the Mesopotamian plain. It is the best known from
excavations, but, because of its location, its material culture was also
the most heavily influenced by Mesopotamia of any Elamite region. Many
upland valleys in the folds of the Zagros were linked with Susa culturally
or politically at various points in its history. Most prominent were the
Kor river basin in [email protected] ca. 500 km southeast, where Anshan was situated,
and [email protected] and [email protected], where the SimaŠki lands may have been
located (Henrickson, 1984; for another view, see i, above). These highland
areas, which are still for the most part unexplored, are considered to
have been the Elamite core. The southeastern Zagros, where large deposits
of copper ores have been identified, are known through excavations at Tepe
Sialk (S^[email protected]), Tepe Yahya (Yahß[email protected]), Tall-i Iblis (Ebl^s), and Shahdad
(ł[email protected]). Excavated finds suggest that this region was part of the
Elamite cultural world, at least in some periods (cf. Amiet, 1986, pp.
160-70, referring to the region as "trans-Elamite"). Both Susiana in the
west and the regions to the southeast in the [email protected] range should perhaps
be considered the Elamite periphery. Mobile pastoralism and agriculture
formed the basis of economic life in Elam, but trade and exchange with
lowland Mesopotamia, particularly in metals, timber, and various stones,
also played a part in the Elamite economy from as early as the 4th
millennium B.C.E. (Alizadeh, 1988; Algaze, pp. 11-18).

The Proto-Elamite (Susa III/Banesh) period, ca. 3400/3200-2800 B.C.E.

The Proto-Elamite period was characterized by a distinctive assemblage
of artifacts and an artistic style distributed from [email protected] in the west
to [email protected] in the east. The artifacts include administrative texts written
in the still undeciphered proto-Elamite script (see iii, below; Plate I); a distinctive glyptic style (Pittman, 1992a; see
CYLINDER SEALS, p. 485); ceramics (cf. Le Brun, 1971, figs. 60-66; see
CERAMICS vi); and various stone and metal objects made from materials
mined, worked, or both in the Iranian highlands and shipped east and west.
The establishment of a city at Anshan during the Proto-Elamite period
(also called Banesh after the corresponding archeological phase in central
[email protected]) and smaller outposts at Tepe Sialk and Tepe Yahya in the eastern
highlands suggest that the foundations of the union between lowland and
highland regions characteristic of later Elam were first laid in the late
4th millennium. The archeological evidence also indicates that in the
[email protected] range an indigenous population coexisted with a foreign,
Proto-Elamite group; the latter had an administrative technology and
material culture closely linked to, if not imported from, those known from
Susa or Anshan (Carter, 1984, pp. 115-32).

Susa remains the site of reference for any discussion of the
Proto-Elamite period, as controlled stratigraphic work on the Acropole (Le
Brun, 1971; idem, 1978) has led to a more exact definition of the
assemblage. Earlier excavations had also yielded more than 1,450 tablets
written in the Proto-Elamite script and a large corpus of contemporary
seals and sealings (Damerow and Englund, p. 2 n. 4; Harper et al., pp.
70-77 nos. 48). Excavations at Anshan (Sumner, 1974; idem, 1976) have
revealed the construction of a city wall and a sequence (ABC levels IV-II)
of mud-brick public buildings dated to the Proto-Elamite (Banesh) period
(Plate II). Most remarkable are the building phases from
levels III and II in operation ABC. The level-III structure was precisely
constructed and had painted walls (Plate III); the level-II building was a fragmentary large
structure containing twelve painted pithoi, indicating a central storage
facility. Some idea of daily life in Proto-Elamite Anshan can be gained
from a building characterized by domestic installations and areas of
small-scale craft activity, called TUV, on the edge of the city
(Nicholas). By 3000 B.C.E. Anshan, estimated at 50 ha (Sumner, 1988, p.
317), had become the largest known settlement in Elam. Contemporary Susa
is estimated at less than 11 ha. There were no other large settlements in
Susiana during the Proto-Elamite period. The rapid growth of Anshan,
coinciding with the decline of population in Susiana, led J. R. Alden
(1982, p. 620; 1987, pp. 159, 164 table 28) to suggest emigration from
lowland Susiana to Anshan just before 3000 B.C.E.

The Old Elamite period (ca. 2600-1600 B.C.E.).

The dynasties of Awan and SimaŠki. The period in which these two
dynasties reigned corresponds approximately to periods IV-V at Susa (ca.
2600-1900 B.C.E.; Schacht). At sites in the [email protected] range Proto-Elamite
administrative texts and associated glyptic and ceramics fell into disuse
at some time between 2900 and 2800. At Anshan a gap in the sequence occurs
at ca. 2600, and the site was not reoccupied on an urban scale until the
Kaftari phase (ca. 2200), when the Proto-Elamite city wall was repaired
(Sumner, 1988, p. 317). Proto-Elamite tablets and seals disappeared at
Susa at about the same time as in the [email protected] range. Statues and wall
plaques found without clear contexts on the Acropole indicate the presence
of a temple of Mesopotamian type, albeit a rather poor example (Amiet,
1976). Susian ceramics datable to the mid-3rd millennium are not of
Mesopotamian inspiration, however. Monochrome-painted wares decorated with
birds, plants, and geometric motifs (Henrickson, 1986, pp. 15-16 table 3)
and accompanying plain wares have their closest analogues in assemblages
from [email protected] and [email protected] (Godin III6-5; CERAMICS vii).

Susa grew from approximately 11 to 46 ha during the 3rd millennium.
According to textual sources, it was a border city alternately under
control of the highland polities of Awan and SimaŠki and the Akkadian and
Ur III empires of Mesopotamia. To a degree these shifting relations are
reflected in the archeological record, for example, the increasing
popularity of Akkadian glyptic and ceramic types and the disappearance of
monochrome-painted wares in Susa IVB (Carter, 1980, pp. 25-30). After the
Akkadian period, seals (CYLINDER SEALS, pp. 486-92) and ceramics in
Susiana continued to be strongly influenced by Mesopotamian styles through
the 3rd and most of the 2nd millennia; at Susa, for example, buff-ware
cups, bowls, and goblets were similar to, though not identical with,
Mesopotamian pottery forms (CERAMICS viii).

Only a few small scattered settlements appeared elsewhere in Susiana
during the last centuries of the 3rd millennium. Tepe Mussian ([email protected]^[email protected]),
on the Deh Loran (q.v.) plain 90 km to the northwest of Susa, was the only
other large town (14 ha) of this period in KĘ[email protected]@n (Schacht, pp.
174-75; Wright, 1981, pp. 192-95).

In [email protected], in the PoŠt-e [email protected], several small groups of stone-built
underground burial chambers have been investigated; they are located apart
from settlement sites. These cemeteries, datable ca. 2600-2400 B.C.E.,
attest to a period of prosperity in the region (Vanden Berghe, pp. 39-50).
Funerary goods in the larger tombs included copper or bronze weapons and
ceramic pots closely paralleling those of Susa IVA and Godin III6-5
(Henrickson, 1986, pp. 23-25). Around 2400 these tombs were superseded by
smaller stone cist graves also grouped in cemeteries isolated from
settlement sites. Claire Goff (pp. 150-51) points out that new settlements
were appearing along traditional migration routes during the late 3rd
millennium and that these changes in the locations of settlements away
from prime farming land may have reflected a shift from agriculture to
stock breeding and the beginning of transhumance in the region. Farther
north the establishment of towns at sites like Godin (Gowd^n) Tepe,
Girairan ([email protected]), and Tepe Giyan (G^[email protected]) indicate a period of growth
in [email protected] The painted-ceramic assemblage called Godin III, dating from
the mid-to-late 3rd millennium, though modified over time, continued in
use in [email protected] until the second half of the 2nd millennium, when it was
superseded by Iron I wares (Henrickson, 1987).

During the second half of the 3rd millennium B.C.E. cities, presumably
the centers of larger states, also grew up in the areas southeast of
Anshan. Shahdad, on the western edge of the DaŠt-e [email protected], and Shahr-i
Sokhta (łahr-e [email protected]˛ta) in the Helmand river valley on the Afghan border
are the two best-known sites (Hakemi; Lamberg-Karlovsky and Tosi). It is
possible that Shahdad (ł[email protected]) should be considered an Elamite center,
but limited excavation and publication of the archeological finds prevent
final identification. Material remains discovered there and at Tepe Yahya,
250 km to the southwest, date from the late 3rd through the early 2nd
millennium. These finds show links with the east (in ceramics,
compartmentalized stamp seals, various exotic stones) and the west
(cylinder seals, stone and ceramic vessels, a Proto-Elamite B inscription;
Carter, 1984, pp. 136-41; Amiet, 1986, pp. 160-70). Growth in the Shahdad
region may perhaps have been initially stimulated by an earlier
Proto-Elamite presence in the area, but by the mid-3rd millennium the city
was the major urban center in the region, identified by Piotr Steinkeller
(1982; 1990) with MarhaŠi and by Franšois Vallat (1993, pp. cxiii-cxviii)
with SimaŠki.

At Tepe Yahya a workshop for making chlorite vessels was discovered in
level IVB (ca. 2600-2300 B.C.E.). Chlorite vessels decorated in the
intercultural, or "old," style were shipped from Yahya and presumably
neighboring sites to Mesopotamian temples, as well as to destinations in
the east (Kohl, pp. 464-66). A simpler, "new," style of chlorite vessel
and "Persian Gulf seals" were found together at later sites on the Persian
Gulf and in Susa and Mesopotamia. These discoveries, as well as the use of
Omani copper in Mesopotamia by the mid-3rd millennium, attest to use of
the sea route between Mesopotamia and eastern Iran in the late 3rd
millennium. By period IVA (ca. 2300-1800 B.C.E.) Tepe Yahya had reached
its maximum size and come within the sphere of influence of the Shahdad
culture (de Miroschedji, 1973; Carter, 1990, pp. 97-98).

The Sukkalmah Period (ca. 1900-1600 B.C.E.). Early in the 2nd
millennium Susa expanded and became a city covering an estimated 85 ha.
New towns and villages appeared all over the Susiana plain and in the
surrounding upland valleys (Schacht, pp. 177-80; Carter, 1984, pp.
146-55). Anshan and the [email protected] river basin also experienced a period of
growth, and settlement in both areas reached a peak that remained
unparalleled until the Achaemenid period (Sumner, 1988; de Miroschedji,
1990, p. 49-62). The distribution of small settlements across the Susiana
plain and the [email protected] river basin suggests the agricultural exploitation of
the two plains and the use of irrigation canals (Sumner, 1989; Carter,
1984). Texts from Susa and the relatively large number of villages and
towns found in the plains indicate a high level of agricultural
development in the period. Susa became a political capital and an
international city active in Near Eastern politics and trade, a locus of
cultural and commercial interchange between the mountain folk of the
Zagros and the inhabitants of the Mesopotamian plain.

The excavations in Ville Royale A and B at Susa, conducted by Roman
Ghirshman (for a complete bibliographic summary, see Steve et al., pp.
148-54), yielded archeological and architectural sequences spanning most
of the 2nd millennium B.C. and provided evidence of town planning.
Courtyard houses of mud brick opened from large intersecting streets or
from smaller alleys. The dead were frequently buried in baked-brick
(family?) tombs under house or courtyard floors; this custom remained in
use at Susa until the middle of the 1st millennium.

In this period the repertoire of buff-ware ceramics at Susa was
expanded to include such new forms as the "Elamite flask" with painted
decoration and gray wares; these objects permit cross dating with the
Kaftari assemblage at Anshan (Carter, 1979; idem, 1984, fig. 10).

Contemporary Anshan is much less well-known than Susa. The Kaftari
ceramic assemblage, characterized by painted buff ware decorated with rows
of birds (Plate IV), is clearly a local development, as are the
plain and painted Kaftari red wares (cf. CERAMICS vi). These vessels were
used along with plain buff wares reminiscent of Susian and Mesopotamian
types. Cuneiform documents from Anshan also underscore the ties of the
city with the lowlands in the sukkalmah period. There was a scribal
school at Anshan (Stolper, 1976, pp. 90-91), and all known documents were
written in both the language and format usual in Mesopotamia. So far no
Elamite tablets from the early 2nd millennium B.C.E. have been found in
Anshan, but it seems possible that they will appear in future excavations.
The glyptic includes Mesopotamian-inspired pieces, an eastern group of
cylinder and stamp seals distinguished by ladies in "crinolines," and
"popular style" seals, usually of bitumen (cf. CYLINDER SEALS, pp.
489-90).

There is still little archeological evidence for this period from areas
farther east, but to the northwest, in [email protected] and [email protected], the older
towns of the Godin III4-3 cultures continued to be occupied.

The Middle Elamite period (ca. 1600-1000 B.C.E.).

The beginning of the Middle Elamite period is marked historically by
the disappearance of the dynasty of the Sukkalmahs and the revival
of the royal title "king of Susa and Anshan." The end is conventionally
placed at ca. 1000 B.C.E. Few changes in material culture can be
identified before the 8th century, however (de Miroschedji, 1981a; idem,
1982, pp. 60-63), and there are gaps in the written sources at both the
beginning and the end of the period.

Middle Elamite I (1600-1350 B.C.E.). The archeological and
art-historical distinctions that mark the beginning of the period are
matters of debate (e.g., Carter, 1984, pp. 144-45; idem, 1994b; Steve,
Gasche, and De Meyer, p. 78; Spycket, 1992a, pp. 230-33). This uncertainty
reflects the absence of published stratigraphic information on the Ville
Royale A at Susa and a scarcity of other documentation (cf. Vallat, 1990,
pp. 124-25). Architectural remains from Susa AXII-XI include the large
central building (ca. 1600-1450), possibly a beer hall and brothel
associated with the cult (TrŘmpelmann, pp. 36-44), and a large courtyard
house (the eastern complex) with a long construction history. The use of
four pilasters attached to the long walls of the main reception room
distinguished the Susian house plan from those common in Mesopotamia
(Roaf, p. 82).

The major architectural remains known from this period are, however, at
Kabnak (Haft Tepe) in the Susiana plain 25 km southeast of Susa. Excavated
structures include a funerary temple and associated vaulted baked-brick
underground tombs, as well as two mud-brick terraces (possibly the eroded
cores of ziggurats) and adjacent rooms (Negahban, pp. 12-19, plans 1-7).
One fragmentary inscribed stele found in the temple courtyard near the
largest of the tombs indicates that the complex was part of a funerary
cult center maintained by, if not built for, King Tepti-ahar in the 16th
century B.C.E. (Reiner). Attached to the larger mud-brick terrace were a
double-chambered kiln and a workshop area, providing evidence of metal,
bone, mosaic, and shell-working, as well as ceramic production and the
modeling of unbaked clay heads. Painted clay funerary heads first appeared
in Middle Elamite I contexts at Kabnak and continued in use throughout the
period (cf. Amiet, 1966, figs. 347-53; Spycket, 1992b, pp. 135-36;
Negahban, pp. 37-39; Plate V).

Characteristic Middle Elamite I ceramic types include a variety of
round-shouldered, button-, stump, or pedestal-based jars or goblets
(Negahban, figs. 2-7; Gasche, type 20 a-b). The final date at which these
forms were in use appears to have been ca. 1350, for they are unknown at
A┌l UntaŠ NapiriŠa (┘[email protected] Zanb^l, q.v.; the ancient city was also known as
[email protected] UntaŠ). Glyptic of this period from Susiana shows close links with
seals and sealings from Nuzi in northern Mesopotamia; the latter are well
dated to the 15th-14th centuries B.C.E. (cf. CYLINDER SEALS, pp. 492-93).

Middle Elamite II-III (ca. 1350-1000 B.C.E.). The periodization
followed here is less finely drawn than one based on texts. The written
sources show that the Elamite kings of this period successfully invaded
Mesopotamia and controlled the hinterlands of Susiana: the Persian Gulf
coast and [email protected] This picture is confirmed by the distribution of
archeological sites and finds from [email protected] to [email protected] (Figure 2). The use of the Elamite language in documents
and inscriptions, as well as the development of distinctive art and
architectural forms, underscores the rise of Elam as an international
power. The royal sponsorship of metalworking and related technologies is
revealed by finds from the major cities of KĘ[email protected]@n. The demand for
minerals and luxury goods in the sanctuaries and courts of the Late Bronze
Age indicates that interregional and international trade in raw materials
was an additional factor in the growing power of the Elamite kings of this
period (Carter, 1984, pp. 156-81). The concentration of population in
larger towns and cities during the Middle Elamite period suggests that
pastoralism, trade, and plunder may have replaced an earlier life style in
which both the Susiana plain and the [email protected] river basin were farmed
extensively by a more settled rural population.

A┌l UntaŠ NapiriŠa is the major excavated site of the period. The
ziggurat and its surrounding temples may have served as a kind of common
sanctuary, where the major divinities of the entire realm were brought
together (de Miroschedji, 1980, pp. 142-43). It appears that most of the
city was never settled intensively (Ghirshman, 1966, pp. 7-10; idem, 1968,
avant propos). In the royal quarter excavation revealed a group of
three monumental buildings with large courts surrounded by long halls and
storerooms. Palaces II and III may have served to house the royal
entourage and can be dated to the time of UntaŠ NapiriŠa; Palace I, the
hypogeum palace, was planned to include five vaulted underground tombs
similar to those at Haft Tepe.

Architectural remains from Susa are poorly known from this period owing
to the methods of the early excavators. To judge from the numbers of
inscribed bricks found on the site, UntaŠ NapiriŠa was an active builder
and restorer of sanctuaries, but the major preserved remains date from the
łutrukid dynasty (ca. 1210-1100 B.C.E.). These rulers rebuilt the
structures on the Acropole, using glazed bricks (Heim, 1992b, pp. 123-27).
Restored plans, based on the inadequate records of the early excavators,
include temples identified as those of Ninhursag and InŠuŠinak in the
central and western parts of the mound flanking the central ziggurat. An
enigmatic southwestern structure yielded the stele with the law code of
Hammurabi, the stele of Naram Sin, and a number of victory trophies
brought back from Mesopotamia by the Middle Elamite kings. Through the
display of such captured monuments and trophies it is probable that they
attempted to establish Susa as a great city in the Mesopotamian tradition
and to legitimize their dynasty as the successors of the defeated Kassite
kings, who had ruled in Meso-potamia for around 400 years (Brinkman, pp.
86-90; Harper).

Inscribed baked bricks and pottery from Liyan (modern [email protected]Šehr) on the
Persian Gulf and inscribed bricks from Tulaspid (Tolasp^d), not far from
Fahl^[email protected] (90 km northwest of Anshan), reveal a Middle Elamite presence
along the major trade routes between Susiana and [email protected] in the latter half
of the 2nd millennium B.C.E. (Peézard, pp. 39-96; Herzfeld, pp. 176-78).
In [email protected] proper, no trace of artifacts of Susian style has been recovered
outside Anshan (see Sumner 1988). Contemporary sites west of the [email protected]
river are identified by the presence of painted Qaleh (Qal┐a) pottery
(CERAMICS viii), those east of the river by Shogha (ł[email protected]) and Teimuran
([email protected]@n) wares (Jacobs, pp. 157-70). The strong lowland cultural
affinities of the Middle Elamite materials from Anshan, in contrast to the
local character of the finds from archeological surveys of the surrounding
[email protected] river region, suggest that in the late 2nd millennium the town was an
isolated outpost of the kings of Susa (Carter, 1984, pp. 172-80). The
highest point of the city was occupied by a variety of constructions,
including a monumental structure covering more than 1000 m2 (Carter,
forthcoming; idem and Stolper; Figure 3) and datable, by epigraphic,
archeological, and radiocarbon-14 data, to the time of HutelutuŠ-InŠuŠinak
(ca. 1120), the last king of the Middle Elamite dynasty. The core of the
building consists of an unroofed rectangular courtyard surrounded by a
long, narrow corridor from which open rooms or suites. The entire
structure has the same basic layout, pattern of access, and architectural
decoration as those in the palaces at A┌l UntaŠ NapiriŠa in KĘ[email protected]@n
(cf. Ghirshman, 1968, plans 13, 14), but it is smaller and constructed
without extensive use of baked bricks. Cuneiform texts written in Elamite
were stored in the building, which thus functioned as some kind of
administrative complex (Stolper, 1984). Many tablets were impressed with a
distinctive seal, its design composed of deeply impressed points arranged
in intersecting lozenge patterns (Carter, forthcoming; Plate VI).

The ceramics of Middle Elamite II-III are defined by excavated
assemblages from A┌l UntaŠ NapiriŠa and Susa (Ville Royale II, levels
13-10). The most distinctive shape is the "Elamite goblet" (Gasche, type
19c), which became more elongated and cylindrical in phase III (de
Miroschedji, 1981a, pp. 15-16; Ghirshman, 1966, pp. 91-92). These vessels
are found as far north and west as Tepe Guran ([email protected]; Thrane, p. 31) in
[email protected] and as far south and east as Anshan. At Anshan the buff wares,
with their parallels in the lowlands, were associated with Qaleh painted
wares. Outside [email protected] Qaleh painted wares have been discovered in ╚d˛a
(Wright, 1979, figs. 42-43) and the [email protected]@z region of eastern
KĘ[email protected]@n and in [email protected] (Carter, 1994a; Schmidt, van Loon, and
Curvers, pls. 109/g, k, e, 115/b). Only a few examples of Qaleh painted
wares are known from Kabnak in Susiana proper (Negahban, fig. 13/153-55).
The distribution of 2nd-millennium painted wares suggests that the ceramic
traditions of the central Zagros were distinct from those in contemporary
Susiana, where ceramics influenced by Mesopotamian wares prevailed.

The main evidence for Middle Elamite II-III glyptic is a group of more
than 160 seals found at A┌l UntaŠ NapiriŠa (CYLINDER SEALS, pp. 494-96).
They were votive objects and were found in association with numerous small
animal figurines that must have served a similar purpose (Porada, p. 3).
The cylinders in "pseudo-Kassite" and "elaborated Elamite" styles closely
resemble Mesopotamian Kassite seals but are made of a distinctive
dark-blue glass. Sealings in the latter style from as far away as Zubeidi
(Zobeyd^) in the Jabal H«amr^n in Iraq reveal trade links between Elam and
Kassite Babylonia (Boehmer and Dńmmer, pp. 68-73). The majority of Middle
Elamite II-III seals were made of faience, with banquet, hunting, and
worship scenes (Porada, 1970, pp. 27-41, 57-74). The same types have been
found at the sanctuary site of Surkh Dum (Sork˛-e Dom) in [email protected] (e.g.,
Schmidt, van Loon, and Curvers, seals 65, 75, 77, 80).

The most outstanding works of art from the period are cast bronzes
found by the early excavators at Susa. They include the headless bronze
and copper statue of Napir-Asu, wife of UntaŠ NapiriŠa, found in the
so-called "temple of Ninhursag" on the Acropole at Susa (Harper et al.,
pp. 132-34). The "sit Šamsi" (lit., "sunrise") is a three-dimensional
bronze model of a cult scene made for łilhak-InŠuŠinak (Plate VII). The setting of this ritual scene between a
ziggurat and a temple recalls the arrangement of cult installations
discovered at the foot of the ziggurat at A┌l UntaŠ NapiriŠa and those
presumed to have existed on the Acropole at Susa. In addition to
metalwork, glass, faience, and glazing technologies were highly developed
in the Middle Elamite II-III period (Heim, 1992a, pp. 202-04) and
continued to flourish during the first phase of the Neo-Elamite period (de
Miroschedji, 1981a, pp. 37-38). Discoveries of faience figurines and
containers at Surkh Dum (Schmidt, van Loon, and Curvers, pls. 148-54)
suggest the impact of lowland Elamite culture on the mountain folk of
[email protected]

Characteristic of the popular arts in Elam in this period are
terra-cotta figurines and models. Small round tables holding food
offerings have been found at Susa and Haft Tepe (TrŘmpelmann, pl. 4).
Terra-cotta models of beds are also typical of the late 2nd millennium
B.C.E. but do not appear to continue into the Neo-Elamite period. Naked
female figurines supporting their breasts with their hands came into
fashion at mid-millennium and continued in use until ca. 1000 (Spycket,
pp. 237-50). Figurines of hump-backed bulls were found in levels AXII-IX
at the Ville Royale at Susa and have parallels at Kabnak, A┌l UntaŠ
NapiriŠa, and Anshan (Carter, 1984, fig. 11). These objects suggest a
continuity of popular religious beliefs through the latter half of the 2nd
millennium.

Also suggesting continuity of religious beliefs are the rock-cut
sanctuaries of the Elamite highlands: [email protected]@[email protected] and NaqŠ-e Rostam
(Seidl, pp. 6-19) in [email protected] and [email protected] Fara and ł[email protected][email protected] near
╚d˛a/[email protected]^r in eastern KĘ[email protected]@n (de Waele, pp. 45-62). [email protected]@[email protected]
was begun under the sukkalmahs but was expanded during Middle
Elamite II-III. [email protected] Fara and ł[email protected][email protected] were also carved in the
Middle Elamite period but possibly usurped and reused later in the
Neo-Elamite period (see below). These shrines indicate an Elamite presence
in the mountains of Iran through the second half of the 2nd millennium
B.C.E. and the early 1st millennium.

The Neo-Elamite period.

At the end of the 2nd millennium B.C.E. Susa rapidly lost its position
of importance. Famines around the turn of the millennium appear from
archeological surveys to have had disastrous effects on the farming
populations of Susiana (de Miroschedji, 1981b, pp. 170-72; idem, 1990, pp.
58-60). By 1000 the Susian kings had also lost their foothold in Anshan,
and new ethnic groups, or perhaps groups that had been subservient to
Elamite populations, may have pushed the remaining Elamites into the
valleys of eastern KĘ[email protected]@n (Carter, 1994a).

Both archeological and historical records confirm the renewal of Susa
late in the 8th century B.C.E. By that time, however, at least two other
Elamite centers, Madaktu and Khidalu, had come to play major roles in
Elamite politics (de Miroschedji, 1986). Excavations at Susa nevertheless
provide some data on the period. A sounding in Ville Royale II produced
eight levels dating from the second half of the 2nd through the first half
of the 1st millennium. Pierre de Miroschedji (1981a, p. 40) dated levels
9-8 to Neo-Elamite I (ca. 1000-725/700) and levels 7-6 to Neo-Elamite II
(ca. 725/700-520). Little imported pottery and few small objects are known
from these excavations, but there is enough to show considerable
continuity between the early Neo-Elamite phase and preceding late Middle
Elamite. Shared features include ceramic types, faience objects, and
glyptic styles. Neo-Elamite II was distinguished by disappearance of
long-lived Elamite ceramic types like the "Elamite goblet," the vat, and
the band-rim jar, as well as the introduction of new ceramic and glyptic
types (Carter, 1984, pp. 184-85 fig. 12). The seals and impressions, for
the most part discovered in the earlier excavations, include both examples
closely related to contemporary Assyro-Babylonian cut-style seals and a
more local group, characterized by pairs of confronted or entwined beasts
framed by inscribed panels (de Miroschedji, 1982, pp. 51-63; CYLINDER
SEALS, pp. 496-501).

Early excavations at Susa also revealed a small temple decorated with
glazed tiles on the Acropole; it was datable to the time of
łutruk-Nahhunte II (ca. 716-699 B.C.E.; Amiet, 1966, fig. 380), the most
powerful of the Neo-Elamite kings. Burial vaults of mud or baked brick or
both were also discovered in several areas at Susa. They yielded gold
jewelry and richly decorated faience objects, including containers and
small bird figurines. These burial practices are linked with earlier
Elamite traditions (Heim, 1992a, p. 203). The rich funerary offerings also
attest to a period of renewed prosperity at Susa in the 8th century B.C.E.

Scattered archeological evidence shows that eastern KĘ[email protected]@n
increased in importance during the late 2nd and early 1st millennia B.C.E.
The only excavated site in the region is Tall-i Ghazir (Tal-e G┌az^r) in
the [email protected]@z plain about 150 km southeast of Susiana and less than 50
km east of [email protected], surrounded by the foothills of the Bak˛t^[email protected]^
mountains. The ceramic sequence found there parallels that known from
Susa, and archeological surveys suggest that the period was one of
population growth in the area (Carter, 1994a). Surveys in the ╚d˛a region,
80 km north of [email protected]@z, have so far failed to reveal any material of
the Neo-Elamite I and II periods (Bayani, p. 102). The inscriptions carved
on rock reliefs at łekaft-e [email protected], 3 km south of ╚d˛a, and [email protected] Fara,
7 km northeast, indicate that the region was part of a state called Aapir,
ruled by Hanni, a contemporary of łutur-Nahhunte (for the dating of these
reliefs, see de Waele, 1972; Carter, 1984, pp. 170-71; Stolper, 1984, pp.
170-71 nn. 364, 366).

The chance discovery of an extraordinarily rich tomb near [email protected], on
the road to [email protected] 10 km north of [email protected] and 100 km southeast of Ghazir
(Alizadeh, 1985, p. 49), also suggests that eastern KĘ[email protected]@n was
probably much more important in the period than can at present be proved.
The [email protected] tomb contained a U-shaped bronze coffin of a type known in
Mesopotamia (e.g., at Ur) and Iran (e.g., at Z^v^a). Objects inside it
included a large, inscribed gold "ring," ninety-eight bracteates, a
dagger, some textile fragments, and a silver rod. On the floor of the tomb
chamber were an elaborate bronze stand, a lamp, a silver jar, a bronze
jar, a bronze cup with rounded bottom, and ten cylindrical vases. The date
of the tomb is disputed; both the late 8th century and the period between
640 and 525 have been suggested (Alizadeh, 1985, pp. 67-68; Vallat, 1984),
but there is no doubt that it is of the Neo-Elamite II phase.

Northwest of Susiana in [email protected] Neo-Elamite II material has been
discovered at the Surkh Dum shrine, level IIB. These discoveries in turn
confirm that the influence of łutruk Nahhunte II (ca. 716-699 B.C.E.), the
most powerful of the Neo-Elamite kings, also reached into the mountains
northwest of Susiana (Schmidt et al., p. 490). But the rising power of the
Medes still farther to the northwest and of the Persians to the southeast
appears to have pushed the Elamites of the early 1st millennium B.C.E.
into the Bak˛t^[email protected]^ mountains between Anshan and [email protected] at the end of the
period (Carter, 1995).

The rise of the Achaemenid empire brought an end to the existence of
Elam as an independent political power but not as a cultural entity.
Indigenous Elamite traditions (e.g., the use of the title "king of Anshan"
by Cyrus (q.v.); the "Elamite robe" worn by Cambyses (q.v.) and seen on
the famous winged genii at Pasargadae; some glyptic styles; the use of
Elamite as the first official language of the empire; and the persistence
of Elamite religious personnel and cults supported by the crown formed an
essential part of the newly emerging Achaemenid culture in [email protected]
Neo-Elamite traditions in domestic pottery, metallurgy, and glyptic,
however, continued in use in KĘ[email protected]@n until at least as late as ca. 520
B.C.E., when Darius I (q.v.) took Susa (de Miroschedji, 1985, pp.
296-303). Under Darius the entire city was rebuilt, and, although some
Elamite traditions, like the extensive use of molded glazed-brick panels
and the use of Elamite in official inscriptions and administration,
persisted, they were minor elements in the newer and more international
Achaemenid imperial styles.

"Proto-Elamite" is the term for a writing system in use in the Susiana
plain and the Iranian highlands east of Mesopotamia between ca. 3050 and
2900 B.C.E., a period generally considered to correspond to the Jamdat
Nasr/Uruk III through Early Dynastic I periods in Mesopotamia. This span
is represented in Iran by levels 16-14B in the Acropole at Susa (Le Brun,
1971), as well as Tepe Yahya (Yahß[email protected]) IVC, Sialk (S^[email protected]) IV2, and Late
Middle Banesh (BaneŠ). Proto-Elamite tablets are the earliest complex
written documents from the region; the script consists of both numerical
and ideographic signs, the latter sometimes assumed to represent a
genetically related precursor of the Old Elamite language (see iv, below).
This supposed precursor language is, however, unknown, and the script
itself has been only partially deciphered. Nevertheless, conclusions about
the contents of the Proto-Elamite texts can be drawn from contextual
analyses and formal similarities to proto-cuneiform tablets from
Mesopotamia. In particular, the structure of published documents
containing accounts and the use of numerical signs and of certain signs
for objects in bookkeeping can be somewhat clarified.

History of decipherment. Since the first Proto-Elamite documents
were discovered at the turn of the century (Scheil, 1900, pp. 130-31;
Friberg, I, pp. 22-26) approximately 1,450 Proto-Elamite tablets from Susa
have been published. Recent excavations at other sites have proved that
the script and numerical systems known from Susa were in use at
administrative centers ranging across Persia as far as the Afghan border,
including the sites of Sialk, Malyan (Mal^[email protected]), Yahya, and Shahr-i Sokhta
(łahr-e [email protected]˛ta; Damerow and Englund, 1989, pp. 1-2; Stolper, 1985, pp.
6-8; Sumner, 1976; Carter and Stolper, p. 253; Nicholas, p. 45). The
texts, written on clay tablets, seem without exception to be
administrative documents: receipts and transfers of grain, livestock, and
laborers; rationing texts; and so on. There are neither literary nor
school texts of the sort known as "lexical lists" from contemporary
Mesopotamia. The earlier "numerical tablets" from Godin (Gowd^n) Tepe V
and Chogha Mish (┘[email protected] M^Š, q.v.), generally dated contemporary with Uruk
IVb and level 17 in the Acropole at Susa, lack ideographic signs and are
thus not classified as Proto-Elamite (Weiss and Young, pp. 9-10; Porada,
p. 58)

Some scholars have attempted to demonstrate a link between the
Proto-Elamite and Linear Elamite scripts (see v, below; Hinz, 1975;
Meriggi, 1971-74, I, pp. 184-200; Andreé and Salvini), but adducing
syllabic values proposed for Linear Elamite has not led to successful
deciphering of Proto-Elamite. A preliminary graphotactical analysis of the
Proto-Elamite texts has also met with only modest success (Meriggi, 1975;
idem, 1971-74, I, pp. 172-84; Brice, 1962-63, pp. 28-33; Gelb, 1975).
Other scholars have attempted to establish a connection between
Proto-Elamite and proto-cuneiform, which first appeared in Uruk IVa (ca.
3200-3100 B.C.E.) and thus seems to predate Proto-Elamite by about a
century (Langdon, p. viii; de Mecquenem, p. 147; Gelb, 1952, pp. 217-20;
Meriggi, 1969; Damerow and Englund, 1989, pp. 11-28).

Advances in the decipherment of Proto-Elamite have been hindered to a
certain degree by the absence of necessary philological tools. A first
step would be a sign list sufficiently dependable and cleansed of
redundant variants to offer an approximate idea of the number and
frequency of signs in the scribal repertoire, as well as providing a
transcriptional instrument for analysis of sign combinations and simple
contexts. Such textual work is a pre-requisite for a complete edition of
the Proto-Elamite texts.

Sign lists provided by early editors (Scheil, 1905; idem 1923; idem,
1935; de Mecquenem; Meriggi, 1971-74) have proved wanting (Damerow and
Englund, 1989, pp. 4-7). The first serious attempt at a formal description
and decipherment of Proto-Elamite script was undertaken in the 1960s and
early 1970s (Brice, 1962-63; idem, 1963; Meriggi, 1971-74; Vaiman, 1989a).
Most recent advances have resulted from a new understanding of the
structure of the numerical sign systems, which has provided a powerful
tool for semantic identification of a number of ideograms, including those
for grain products, animals, and, it seems, human beings (Vaiman, 1989a;
Friberg, I; Damerow and Englund, 1989).

Format and semantic hierarchy. Proto-Elamite texts are written
on clay tablets similar in general shape and proportions to Mesopotamian
clay tablets of the 3rd millennium B.C.E., including Uruk III
proto-cuneiform tablets of the later phase. The tablets are thick oblongs,
their height and width normally in a ratio of 2:3. Following the
convention established in the earliest proto-cuneiform phase,
Proto-Elamite scribes used both sides of the tablet. Regardless of the
space remaining after two or more entries on the obverse, the scribe
usually rotated the tablet around a vertical axis and recorded the totals
along the upper edge of the reverse. Larger accounts could have a more
complex format (Brice, 1962-63, pp. 20-21; Vaiman, 1989a, pp. 130-32;
Damerow and Englund, 1989, pp. 11-13; Figure 1).

Three features distinguish Proto-Elamite tablets from proto-cuneiform
documents, however. First, the Proto-Elamite documents were written in a
linear script. Second, the first signs on a tablet, the heading, have
approximately the same function as the proto-cuneiform "colophon," which
is usually inscribed together with the final total on the reverse of the
tablet; Proto-Elamite headings never contain numerical notations, however.
Third, each entry normally includes an ideogram followed by a numerical
notation, a divergence from the strict sequence of numerical sign followed
by ideogram in proto-cuneiform texts.

The heading of a Proto-Elamite tablet generally specifies the purpose
and authorizing person or institution; the best known such ideographic
designation is the so-called "hairy triangle", which seems to represent a
leading institution or possibly kin group in Elam. Qualifying ideograms
were inscribed within this sign, apparently to designate subordinate
institutions or groups (Dittmann, 1986a, pp. 332-66; Lamberg-Karlovsky, p.
210; Damerow and Englund, 1989, p. 16). Following these introductory sign
combinations are the individual entries, in horizontal registers without
regard to formal arrangement into columns (Figures 2 -3). The ideograms in Proto-Elamite text entries seem
almost exclusively to denote persons, quantified objects, or both; sign
combinations seeming to designate persons invariably precede those
designating quantified objectswhen both appear in one notation. A sign or
sign combination representing a person or title is often introduced by a
sign representing his position. Objects are generally designated by
ideograms in combination with qualifiers; as yet, however, there are no
statistical means of testing the probability that certain signs functioned
as qualifiers of presumed substantives.

In Proto-Elamite documents there can be multiple entries with different
levels of internal organization. A text may consist simply of a sequence
of entries of exactly the same type; an example would be a list of grain
rations for a number of different recipients. A text may also embody a
hierarchical order of transmitted information, as in the oft-encountered
alternation of two different types of entry, perhaps a number of workers
followed by the amount of grain allotted to them. In this instance the two
entries may be considered to be combined in a more comprehensive text
unit. A text may also, however, be highly structured, with many
identifiable levels, reflecting, for instance, the organizational
structure of a labor unit (Figures 2-3; Nissen, Damerow, and Englund, pp.
116-21).

That all entries seem to contain numerical notations suggests that they
represent a bookkeeping system, rather than the distinct sentences or
other comparable semantic units of a spoken language. This semantic
structure is evidence of a close relation between Proto-Elamite and
proto-cuneiform texts. Proto-Elamite headings correspond to the
"colophons" that often accompany totals on proto-cuneiform texts. Entries
in Proto-Elamite documents correspond to the physically encased notations
on proto-cuneiform texts; curiously, the hierarchical structure of
individual Proto-Elamite entries is not reflected in a syntactical
structure, whereas in Mesopotamian texts this hierarchy continues to be
represented in some measure by the graphic arrangement of cases and
subcases. Despite different graphic forms, Proto-Elamite texts thus
exhibit the same general semantic structure as that of proto-cuneiform
texts. This relationship must be considered a strong indication of their
relative chronology: The more developed linear syntax apparent in
Proto-Elamite texts, in which the graphical arrangement of semantic units
has been dispensed with, implies that proto-cuneiform is earlier. This
conclusion is in full accord with the established stratigraphic
correspondences between Susa and Uruk (Dittmann, 1986a, pp. 296-97, 458
table 159e; Dittmann, 1986b, p. 171 n. 1).

Numerical sign systems. Early work on the numerical notations in
Proto-Elamite texts was hampered by inadequate identification of
individual signs and in particular of sign systems, which were applied in
Mesopotamia and Elam to record different types of objects. Initially there
was an attempt to combine a large number of what are now recognized as
incompatible numerical notations into a single "decimal" system (Scheil,
1905, pp. 115-18; idem, 1923, p. 3). This attempt was abandoned in 1935,
when it was recognized that different numerical systems had been in use in
Mesopotamia, particularly for enumeration of discrete objects and for
measuring grain by capacity (Scheil, 1935, pp. i-vi). It was, however,
mistakenly assumed that the sign (Symbol 1) had the same decimal value 10 x (Symbol 2) (instead of 6 x (Symbol 2)) when representing grain measures
as when representing numbers of discrete objects (Thureau-Dangin, p. 29;
Langdon, pp. v, 63-68; Vaiman, 1989a), which prevented understanding of
capacity notations until the late 1970s (Friberg, 1978-79). Although
detailed documentation of the various numerical systems has not yet been
undertaken, the formal structure of these systems and their dependence
upon the older proto-cuneiform systems are now clear (Damerow and Englund,
1987, pp. 117-21, 148-49 n. 12; idem, 1989, pp. 18-30).

As the semantic analysis of Proto-Elamite is largely dependent upon
examination of the contexts in which signs are used, the close connection
with proto-cuneiform sources in the numerical systems has been helpful in
establishing correspondences between Proto-Elamite and proto-cuneiform
ideograms. For example, the sexagesimal system used in Meso-potamia for
most discrete objects, including domestic and wild animals, human beings,
tools, products of wood and stone, and containers (sometimes in standard
measures), is also well attested in the Susa administrative texts, though
the field of application seems limited to inanimate objects like jars of
liquid and arrows (Damerow and Englund, 1989, pp. 52-53). A decimal system
used in Proto-Elamite texts for counting animals and human beings has no
proto-cuneiform counterpart. Bisexagesimal notations qualify barley
products, as in contemporary Mesopotamian documents. The numerical system
for indicating grain capacity involves signs from the sexagesimal system
but with entirely different arithmetical values. This system is well
attested in both Proto-Elamite and proto-cuneiform sources and seems to
have had the same area of application. In particular, the small units
inscribed below (Symbol 2) are qualifying ideograms for grain products,
thus denoting the quantity of grain in one unit of the product. The
Proto-Elamite system differs from the proto-cuneiform system in that below
the sign (Symbol 2) only units that are multiples of one
another appear (e.g. 1/2, 1/4, 1/8), a simpler system than the somewhat
cumbersome use of fractions in proto-cuneiform texts (Damerow and Englund,
1987, pp. 136-41). As with the proto-cuneiform texts, in the Proto-Elamite
texts there are numerical systems graphically derived from the basic
systems but perhaps applied to different sorts of discrete objects or
grain (Figure 4). All these similarities together suggest that
the Proto-Elamite systems, with the exception of the decimal system, were
borrowed from Mesopotamia; even signs in the decimal system were
apparently borrowed from the Mesopotamian bisexagesimal system to
represent the higher values 1,000 and 10,000.

Ideograms. Semantic analysis of the objects counted by the
decimal system has led to the probable identification of a number of
ideograms. The most important are the two signs (Symbol 3) and (Symbol 4) . The graphic form, as well as the
association, of the ideogram (Symbol 3) with other signs strongly resembling
proto-cuneiform signs known to represent domestic animals, in particular
sheep and goats (Symbol 5), suggests the interpretation of this
sign as "sheep" (Figure 1). In texts from the essentially rural economy of
ancient Persia the large numerical notations qualifying this ideogram and
related signs seem to confirm the identification. The fact that the signs
are on the whole abstract forms may suggest either a set of symbols for
domestic animals common in Mesopotamia and Susiana before the inception of
written documents or, more likely, signs borrowed in altered form from
Uruk (Damerow and Englund, 1989, pp. 53-55).

It appears that the very common sign (Symbol 4) was used to qualify personal names. All
signs or sign combinations in a text may be introduced by it, though more
commonly it introduces only the first entry (Damerow and Englund, 1989,
pp. 53-55). The same sign was used as an ideogram for objects, together
with decimal notations commonly used for counting animals. This double
function suggests that the sign denotes a category of workers or slaves.
The use of the sign in both ways is firmly established in the text
illustrated in
Figures 2-3 (Damerow and Englund, 1989, pp. 56-57; Nissen, Damerow,
and Englund, pp. 116-21). In the same text numbers of objects represented
by this ideogram correspond to a regular capacity measure of barley of 1/2
(Symbol 2), parallel to texts known from
contemporary Mesopotamia. Finally, the sign is often used parallel to
signs that may

thus also be interpreted as referring to persons. One of them is a
clear graphic equivalent of the proto-cuneiform sign SAL (Symbol 6), so that both the graphic and semantic
correspondences of proto-Elamite (Symbol 4) to proto-cuneiform (Symbol 7), meaning "male slave/laborer" (Vaiman,
1989b), seem clear.

Linear Elamite was a system of writing used at the end of the 3rd
millennium B.C.E. by Puzur-InŠuŠinak, the last of the twelve "kings of
Awan," according to a king list found at Susa (Scheil; Gelb and Kienast,
pp. 321 ff.; see i, above). He ruled ca. 2150 B.C.E. and was a
contemporary of Ur-Nammu, the first ruler of the Ur III dynasty in
Mesopotamia, and Gudea, ensi of Lagash (Wilcke, p. 110). Linear
Elamite (Meriggi, pp. 184-220, tables I-IV: "script B") may have been
derived from Proto-Elamite script ("script A"; see iii, above), with which
it has some signs in common; it may not have survived Puzur-InŠuŠinak. It
was written either from left to right or from right to left.

There are only twenty-two known documents in Linear Elamite; they are
identified by letters A-V (Hinz, 1969, pp. 11-44; Hinz 1971; Andreé and
Salvini, 1989, pp. 58-61); nineteen of them are on stone and clay objects
excavated in the Acropole at Susa and are now in the Louvre, Paris (cf.
Andreé-Salvini, 1992). There is also a fine silver vase with a line of
perfectly executed text (Q) preserved in the Tehran Museum; its proverance
is unknown (Hinz, 1969, pp. 11-28). Six linear signs, three of which are
without parallel (hapax legomena) in known Linear Elamite writing, are
engraved on the rim of a vase (S) from Shahdad (ł[email protected]) in [email protected] (Hinz,
1971). Finally, on a marble stamp seal (V) of unknown origin there is a
representation of a bull surmounted by three linear signs (two of them
unattested variants), which probably hide a personal name (Glock, Auction
Drouot, no. 466). A tablet bearing the only Susa Linear Elamite text (O)
that does not come from the Acropole includes signs analogous to but
different from those on the other objects and must be considered to
represent a different and probably older system of writing.

The most important longer texts, appear in monumental contexts, and are
partly bilingual. They are engraved on large stone sculptures, including a
statue of the goddess Narunte (I), the "table au lion" (A; Figure 1), and large votive boulders (B, D), as well as on
a series of steps (not steles! cf. Scheil, MDP X, pp. 9-11, pl. 3; F, G,
H, U) from a monumental stone stairway, where they alternated with steps
bearing texts with Puzur-InŠuŠinak Akkadian titles (cf. Andreé and
Salvini, 1989). There are also a few texts on baked-clay cones (J, K, L),
a clay disk (M), and clay tablets (N, O, R). Some objects include both
Linear Elamite and Akkadian cuneiform inscriptions: A, I, C (on an
alabaster statue), the monumental stairway as a whole, and B (votive
boulder Sb 6 joined with Sb 177) have bilingual and bigraphic inscriptions
(Andreé and Salvini, 1989), which inspired the first attempts at
decipherment of Linear Elamite (Bork, 1905; idem, 1924; Frank).

No decisive progress seems to have been made in more recent times.
Walther Hinz's reading and translation of the documents (1962; 1969, pp.
11-44) and his list of sign values must be considered overoptimistic. His
list (1969, p. 44) includes fifty-six signs, which are not numbered; he
proposed logographic values for four of them, phonetic (syllabic) values
for the rest. The signs are ordered on the questionable principle of the
alphabetical order of the transcription. Piero Meriggi's approach is more
appropriate, in that he has ordered and numbered sixty-two signs,
excluding hapax legomena and including some variants, according to form (a
criterion already used successfully in deciphering cuneiform writing).
Beéatrice Andreé-Salvini and the present author are now preparing a new
list, taking into consideration also the frequency of signs, an important
element in testing proposed values for those signs. The most frequent
sign, attested forty-three times, is a lozenge (Symbol 8), (Symbol 9), to which Meriggi attributed the value
ri, though formerly it was read ki.

All attempts at deciphering and reading Linear Elamite have been based
on the likelihood that the texts are in the Elamite language (see v,
below), which is known for certain only from an older cuneiform text (a
treaty between the Akkadian king Naram-Sin and a king of Awan) and from
later texts in cuneiform script (see vi, below). Only Ferdinand Bork
attempted, in 1924, to link the signs of linear Elamite with cuneiform
signs both morphologically and semantically, but his attempt was not
successful. Linear Elamite is now generally considered to be unrelated to
cuneiform writing in the morphology of the signs. Scholars agree that
Linear Elamite is primarily syllabic, with a few logograms. Meriggi
attributed open consonant-vowel (CV) values to seventeen signs and
vowel-consonant (VC) values to six signs. He also identified two probable
vocalic signs (V) and six complex consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) or
ideographic signs: those for "sky," "son," "god," "country," and "king"
and the purely phonetic sign hal. Meriggi and Hinz agreed on
fifteen phonetic and ideographic values. About ten of them had already
been proposed by Carl Frank or Bork and are derived, on the basis of the
corresponding Akkadian texts, from the name of the sovereign Puzur(Hinz:
Kutik)-InŠuŠinak, from his patronym (son of Simbi-iŠhuk), and from the
toponym Susa. Frank's sequence in-Šu-Ši-na-ak, su-se-en-ki
(1912) corresponds to Hinz's in-Šu-Ši-na-ik, Šu-Ši-im-ki
(1969, text A ll. 1, 3; Figure 1). The variant in-Šu-uŠ-na-ak (on
step F l. 1), read by Meriggi, appears to confirm the correctness of the
earlier readings. The sign unanimously read as nap(Symbol 10) "god" had already been identified by
Bork in 1905 as a divine determinative, but personal names plus this
determinative are not alone sufficient to verify the assumption that the
underlying language is Elamite, although the historical context suggests
that it was.

In addition to his sixty-two "principal" signs, Meriggi included
numbers 63-103, which are hapax legomena. Some of the latter can be
considered variants of the basic signs, but others must be recognized as
distinct, as they recur only in tablet O, for which an independent list
must be drawn up. On the other hand, certain signs not present in either
Hinz's or Meriggi's list, including those that are incomplete because of
damage to the documents but are certainly different in form from the
recorded signs, must be taken into account. The total number of signs in
Linear Elamite must therefore be estimated at more than 100.

One fundamental problem in defining the corpus of texts and
consequently what is to be considered Linear Elamite is the necessity of
identifying two or three analogous but different Linear Elamite scripts
and of investigating their genesis and the relations among them.

The Elamite language is known from texts in cuneiform script (q.v.),
most of them found at Susa but some from other sites in western and
southwestern Iran and, in the east, in [email protected] and ranging in date from the
24th to the 4th century B.C.E. This span can be divided into four main
periods, Old, Middle, and Neo-Elamite and Late Elamite or Achaemenid; most
of the surviving material comes from the last three periods, during which
the language changed considerably, especially in syntactic structure.
There are also indications that the language did not represent one single
dialect. The genetic relationship of Elamite to other languages has not so
far been established with certainty, though attempts have been made to
connect it with Dravidian (McAlpin). A few lexical items are known from
non-Elamite texts, chiefly from Mesopotamia.

Script and phonology.

Beginning at the end of the 4th millennium B.C.E. two other writing
systems are known from ancient Iran: Proto-Elamite (see iii, above) and
Linear Elamite (see iv, above), but they have not yet been deciphered. The
Akkadian syllabic system, probably adoped in the 23rd century B.C.E., was
used until the 4th century B.C.E. It had signs for syllables consisting of
vowels (V) and various combinations of consonants and vowels CV, VC, and
CVC, as well as signs for whole words (logograms) and signs serving as
semantic classifiers (markers of logograms and indicators of such noun
categories as divine names, male or female names, place names, and grain
or wood products). Elamite phonology, however, was quite different from
that of Akkadian; for instance, it may have included vowels other than the
Akkadian a, i, u, and e and consonant groups unknown to Akkadian,
including combinations of three consonants or two consonants at the ends
of words. To express groups of two or three consonants scribes therefore
had to use some VC or CV signs simply for C (e.g., kuŠihŠ, written
ku-Ši-ih-Š(i), and kuŠihŠta, written
ku-Ši-ih-(i)Š-ta/ku-Ši-ih-Š(i)-ta). The additional vowel was
generally i.

Because the syllabary was so unsuited for the Elamite language, it is
almost impossible to establish the phonemic system. Nevertheless, the ways
in which the scribes used the signs at their disposal reveal numerous
features of Elamite phonology, including sandhi and vowel harmony, as well
as, in the later period, the loss of h in initial and final
position, before consonants, and sometimes also between vowels. The shift
of final u to i, which was particularly common in the late
period, was sometimes accompanied by vowel assimilation (e.g.,
puktu > pukti > pikti "help," turu >
turi > tiri "to take"). There may have been a stress
accent on the first syllable, which would account for the frequent elision
of vowels in the second syllable (e.g., kuti-ka, written
ku-ti-ka/ku-ut-ka, pulu-hu, written pu-ul-hu)
and the occasional writing of first syllables as if they had long vowels
or double consonants. The elongation of the vowel of the first syllable
was marked by a supplementary vowel, an h, or reduplication of the
following consonant (e.g., mari/mauri/marri "to
take," muŠa/muhŠa/muŠŠa "to account (for)."

Morphology.

Word formation. Elamite was an agglutinative language. A word
usually consisted of a "base" (stem) plus one or more suffixes. The base
ended in a vowel and was either identical with a root ending in a vowel or
was formed by adding a vowel to a root ending in a consonant. The added
vowel could cause the final consonant of the root to be doubled (see
below). The root could be monosyllabic or disyllabic. Roots without
suffixes and bases with only vocalic extensions could function as words.
Word classes included nouns, pronouns, and verbs.

Nominal suffixes. So-called "classifiers" were added to a
nominal base to form words. Such nominal suffixes defined the noun as the
speaker (first person), the person spoken to (second person), or the
person or thing spoken of (third person). The suffixes were, for the first
person, -k; for the second, -t; for the third, animate
singular, -r, animate plural, -p, and inanimate -me
(including abstract and collective nouns),-t,and
-n (neutral). Inanimate nouns of the -me class could be
identical with nominal and pronominal bases or verbal bases and
participial forms (verbal nouns). Nominal suffixes were also attached to
the locative particle aha- "there," to the negative particle
in-, to the numerals, and to country names to form ethnic nouns;
attached to the pronominal base i- (< i, invariable
demonstrative pronoun), they also served to form anaphoric and personal
pronouns. Indeed, anaphoric pronouns i-r, i-p (respectively
third-person singular and plural), i (me class), and
i-n (-n class), as well as personal pronouns, both animate
u, nuku (first-person singular and plural), nu,
num (second-person singular and plural), and i-r, ap
(third-person singular and plural) and inanimate i (me
class) and i-n (n class), included forms with nominal
suffixes. There was an accusative form for personal pronouns, marked with
nominal suffix -n. Personal pronouns (archaizing or dialectal
forms) added to words were used as possessive adjectives.

Verbal suffixes. Personal suffixes of the verbal conjugation,
two participial suffixes, and animate third-person singular and plural
suffixes could be added to the verbal base. The infinitive could be
derived from the verbal base without suffix. The personal suffixes of the
verbal conjugation expressed the perfective aspect and indicated person
and number (first-person singular -h, second-person singular
-t, third-person singular -Š; first-person plural
-hu, second-person plural -ht, third-person plural
-hŠ).

The verbal bases were used to produce the participial form with
suffix -n (passive or reflexive, imperfective or durative aspect)
and the participial form with suffix -k (passive, perfective
aspect). To express the subject or agent the two participles and the agent
noun received animate nominal suffixes (e.g., hutta-n "(is/was
being/will be) done," hutta-n-r "heon whom the process
hutta-n depends" = "he is/was/will be doing"; hutta-k "(it
was) done," hutta-k-r "he on whom the process hutta-k
depended" = he did/has done"). The verbal base was also used to produce
agent nouns with nominal third-person suffixes -r and -p
(active, interminate aspect; e.g., hutta-r/p "he is/they are
a doer/doers").

The optative particle -ni followed the perfective forms, whereas
the prohibitive particle ani/u was followed by the
imperfective forms.

Syntax.

The syntax of written Elamite clearly contained elements from various
dialects and was therefore unstable. Furthermore, in the course of time
sentence structure shifted from being based on nouns and the use of
anaphoric pronouns with animate classifiers indicating person to a system
centered on verbs.

Generally speaking, the sentence consisted of a noun followed by
various complements (qualifiers, determiners). The verb was always placed
at the end of a clause, and in simple statements the most common word
order was subject-object-verb/agent-patient-verb. The relations among the
elements of nominal chains were indicated by nominal suffixes and word
order. For example, when a noun qualified a preceding noun or pronoun (cf.
English apposition) its formative suffix, if present, agreed with the
nominal class of the word it qualified (e.g., u sunki-k "I
king(-k)," the animate first-person singular suffix -k
showing that "king" refers to "I"; nap pahi-r "god
protector(-r)," the animate third-person singular suffix -r
showing that "protector" refers to an animate third-person singular noun;
sunki-r peti-r ak tari-r "king(-r) enemy(-r)and/orally(-r)" = "king, enemy, and/or ally").

When a noun or pronoun (whether or not formed with a suffix) was the
determining complement of a preceding noun, it was marked with the suffix
of the nominal class of the word it completed (e.g., pahi-rsunki-p-r "protector(-r) king(-p)-r" =
"protector of the kings," the first -r showing that the word is
animate third-person singular, the suffix -p indicating the animate
third-person plural, the second -r showing that the second word is
dependent upon pahi-r; takki-me u-me "life(-me) I-me" =
"life of me" or "my life," the second -me showing that "I" is
dependent upon takki-me; igi-Šutu u-p "brother-sister
I-p" = "brothers and sisters of me" or "my brothers and sisters,"
the third-person plural suffix -p indicating a relationship between
"I" and "brothers and sisters"; cf. English genitive).

In more complex nominal chains a determining noun could itself be
determined by its own determining noun (e.g., takki-meigi-Šutu
u-p-me "life(-me) my brothers-and-sisters-me" = "life of
my brothers and sisters," the suffix -me forming the abstract
takki-me and the second -me indicating that "my brothers and
sisters" is dependent upon takki-me).

Words could be subordinated to one another by means of nominal
constructions, simple or complex. In these constructions the anticipated
subordinating word was in turn represented by an anaphoric pronoun,
followed by a determining word indicating the nature of the subordination
(manner, place, or time). The anaphoric pronoun and the determining word
formed a syntactic unit. In the complex construction a personal pronoun
was subordinated to the determined anaphoric pronoun. This personal
pronoun was marked with the suffix of the nominal class of the
subordinating word. For example, in the sentence peti-r i-r pat-r
u-r "enemy(-r)he(-r) below-r I-r"
= "(should thou place) the enemy under me" the suffix -r of the
anaphoric pronoun shows that the anticipated subordinating word is animate
third-person singular, and the last -r shows that "I" is dependent
upon the determined anaphoric pronoun "he." In the simple construction the
word immediately preceding the syntactic unit was subordinated to the
determined anaphoric pronoun referring to it (e.g., kiti-n . . . zalmu
u-me i-n ukku-n "the divine rule(-n) . . . statue I-me
it(-n) above-n" = "the divine rule . . . (should be placed)
above my statue," the suffix -n of the anaphoric pronoun indicating
that the subordinating word is inanimate of the n class. The same
syntactic unit could complete an anticipated word (e.g., suhmutu .
. . igiri-me tah "stele (me class) it gratitude-me I
have placed" = "I have placed . . . the stele in gratitude," the anaphoric
prounoun i of the syntactic unit indicating that the completed word
is inanimate of the me class. As the focus of Elamite syntax
gradually shifted from nouns to verbs, anaphoric pronouns were used less
to introduce syntactic units, and in the late period they came to be
understood as simple postpositions or adverbs, used with or without
nominal suffixes.

A verb could be used to modify a following verb, in which case the
personal suffix could be omitted from the first verb (e.g., pepŠi(-h)
hutta-h "(I-)renewed I-made" = "I did again").

A complex statement could contain several clauses, either coordinated
or linked by subordination. Subordination was hierarchical and obeyed the
word order sub-subordinate, subordinate, main clause. The mark of
subordination (last in a chain of suffixes) could be a nominal suffix, the
suffix -a, or both for relative clauses, whether or not introduced
by relative pronouns (animate akka, inanimate appa), and the
suffix -a (as, whereas, because) after other subordinate clauses.
It was attached to what would be the verb of the subordinate clause in
English. In addition, the suffix -a was attached to suffixes of
determining words placed at the ends of subordinated noun clauses.

When the main verb at the end of a clause was preceded by pronouns
referring to nouns in an earlier clause the syntactic functions of those
nouns were reflected in the order of the pronouns: beneficiary/indirect
object, subject/agent, direct object/patient (usually followed by
-n).

Direct and indirect speech were identified by the verb ma- placed at
the end of the quotation.

tetin-i "column-this" hiŠ u-me-ni ak hiŠ "name of-mine and the
names" appa aha tallu-h-a "that there I-have-written-that" akka
melka-n-r-a "who(ever) (will be) destroy-ing(-r)-who" ak suku-n-r-a
"and will be suppress-ing(-r)-who" ak hiŠ duhi-e "and name
own-his" aha-r tatallu-n-r-a "there(-r) reinscrib-ing(-r)-who"
d.InŠuŠinak i-r si-r-a "GOD.InŠuŠinak he(-r) before-r-who"
ani uzzu-n "let-not be walk-ing" = "Whoever would destroy and
suppress name of mine and names that I have written on this column and
(then) would reinscribe his own name, may he not walk before InŠuŠinak!"

The information furnished by archeological excavations in Persia and by
cuneiform documents permit a summary description of some aspects of
Elamite religion from the end of the 3rd millennium B.C.E. until the
Achaemenid period. As most of this material comes from Susiana (mainly
Susa, ┘[email protected]@ Zanb^l [q.v.], and Haft Tepe), a region under strong
Mesopotamian influence, it is difficult to extrapolate specifically
Elamite features. Some such features can be identified from finds on the
Persian plateau, however, particularly at [email protected]@[email protected], NaqŠ-e Rostam, and
Tal-e Mal^[email protected] in [email protected]; [email protected]^r in KĘ[email protected]@n; and ł[email protected] in [email protected];
and at Liyan ([email protected]Šehr) on the Persian Gulf. Furthermore, certain details
can be drawn from Mesopotamian documents, both written and iconographic.
Analysis of the Elamite religion thus requires isolation in the Susian
documentation of elements that are not Mesopotamian and that can be
compared with what is otherwise known from the Persian plateau and
adjacent areas.

The pantheons.

In texts from Susa written in Sumerian, Akkadian, or Elamite (see vii,
below) and in Mesopotamian documents relating to Elam more than 200
divinities are mentioned as having been honored in Susiana and on the
Persian plateau. This total results from several factors.

It is essential first to differentiate the divinities by origin. As
Susa remained in the Mesopotamian orbit for a very long time, several
Sumerian and Akkadian deities (Inanna, Ea, Sin, Belet-ali, IM, łala) had
temples in Susa or in Elam or enjoyed a degree of popular acceptance, as
is clear from the many personal names that include as elements the divine
names Adad, Ea, Enlil, Erra, Sin, and łamaŠ, to cite only the most common.
Most oaths were taken in the name of łamaŠ (often associated with
InŠuŠinak or IŠnikarab), though no temple was dedicated to him. Some gods,
particularly InŠuŠinak (whose name in Sumerian means "lord of Susa"), seem
to have been specifically attached to Susa or Susiana; they include
IŠnikarab (IŠmekarab, a god, not a goddess; W. G. Lambert, 1976-80),
Lagamal (Lagamar; for variant signs, see Hinz and Koch), and Manzat (W. G.
Lambert, 1989).

Several divinities from the plateau can be connected to the pantheons
of the principal geopolitical entities that constituted Elam (see i,
above), for example, Pinikir, Nahhunte, Hutran, Humban, and KirmaŠir in
Awan; HiŠmitik and Ruhurater in łimaŠki; and NapiriŠa (reading of dGAL
established by Hinz, 1965), KiririŠa, Simut, Kilah-Šupir, Silir-qatru, and
Upurkupak in Anshan and its hinterland. It is difficult, however, to
assign other Elamite divinities to specific local pantheons.

It is therefore also useful to distinguish the deities in this
heterogeneous ensemble by period. Although certain gods and goddesses were
honored throughout the history of Elam (e.g., InŠuŠinak, Pinigir, Humban,
and Nahhunte), many were worshiped only in certain periods. For example,
there was a cult for Ea and Enzag (the great god of Dilmun), who shared a
temple with InŠuŠinak, only in the sukkalmah period, under
Temti-Agun (Scheil, 1939, p. 10; see Table **). Anunitum was worshiped
only in the time of Atta-huŠu (Scheil, 1939, p. 9).

Finally, the gods can be differentiated by the nature of the sources.
In royal inscriptions official divinities are mentioned, those who had
temples or played a role in religious rites, whereas economic texts reveal
through onomastics the names of those who enjoyed genuine popularity
(Zadok; Scheil, 1930; idem, 1932; idem, 1933; idem, 1939). From such
evidence it can be observed that, historically, personal names changed
from predominantly Meso-potamian to almost exclusively Elamite.

Discontinuities in the archeological record nevertheless complicate
reconstruction of the pantheons. Almost half the Elamite gods attested in
Sumerian and Akkadian sources are unknown from Elamite texts; for example,
of five Elamite gods assimilated to Ninurta (King, pl. 12 ll. 1-5) only
InŠuŠinak is otherwise known, and of the seven brothers of Narundi (King,
pl. 24) only Nahhunte and IgiŠti are otherwise known, the latter
exclusively through inclusion of his name in personal names. Of nineteen
Elamite divinities enumerated by AŠŠurbanipal (q.v.) in the 7th century
B.C.E. (Aynard, pp. 54-55) five are otherwise unknown. It is surprising,
furthermore, that Enlil, whose name figures prominently in onomastics,
never had an official cult, whereas łilhak-InŠuŠinak built, probably at
Susa, a temple dedicated to a certain łak-ammar-haniŠta, known only from a
single inscribed brick (Walker, p. 135).

The Old Elamite period. During the Awan phase Susa was under the
domination of the Sargonids, who nevertheless left few traces of their
presence. Nothing is left from Sargon or RimuŠ, and their successor,
ManiŠtusu (ca. 2269-55 B.C.E.), appears to have been the first king to
build there; the two bricks surviving from his temple are too fragmentary
to reveal the name of the god to whom it was dedicated, however. EŠpurm,
governor of Susa for ManiŠtusu, dedicated a statue to the goddess Narundi
(Scheil, 1908, p. 1), and a scribe dedicated a statue to NIN.NE'.UNU
(Scheil, 1905 no. 2) for the life of Naram-Sin (2254-18 B.C.E.). In fact,
an initial impression of the Elamite pantheon is furnished by the treaty
of Naram-Sin, which survives in the Elamite language and begins with an
enumeration of about forty divinities, of whom the names of thirty-three
are preserved (K÷nig, no. 2). As the treaty was actually concluded between
Naram-Sin's Susan vassal and the contemporary ruler, perhaps Hita, of
Awan, these gods were probably either Suso-Mesopotamian or Awanite. Half
of them appear only in this document; of the others a dozen had cults in
Susa or in Elam in one or another period or through all periods: Pinigir,
Huban, Nahiti (earlier spelling of Nahhunte), InŠuŠinak, Simut, Hutran,
SiaŠum, Manzat, Narida (Narundi), Narzina, and KirmaŠir, mentioned in that
order.

The last dynast of Awan, Puzur-InŠuŠinak, conquered Susa but did not
impose his own pantheon. With the exception of the goddess Narundi, whose
origin is debatable, and of ługu, a god otherwise unknown, it was the
Suso-Mesopotamian divinities to whom he was devoted. He built various
monuments for InŠuŠinak, the local god. Two statuettes were dedicated to
Belat-Terraban and Narundi respectively; in curses on those who might
mutilate these monuments he invoked InŠuŠinak and łamaŠ, Enlil and Enki,
IŠtar and Sin, Nin-hursag and Narundi, and sometimes Nergal. Furthermore,
from the economic texts (Legrain) it seems that the majority of personal
names were of Mesopotamian origin and that the divine names from which
they were composed were almost always the names of Meso-potamian deities,
especially Ea, łamaŠ, Erra, Adad, IŠtar, and Innana but sometimes Amal,
Enzu, Nabium, Nisaba, Enki, Ningirsu, Nindar, łulpae, and others. Aside
from Narundi and Manzat, few Elamite divine names are attested in such
contexts.

In the Ur III period in Mesopotamia Susa fell under the domination of
the Sumerians, and łulgi (2094-47 B.C.E.) built a temple to InŠuŠinak and
another to Ninhursag of Susa (M. Lambert, 1970). He also inscribed a
carnelian bead to Ningal (Scheil, 1905, p. 22). A maritime trader
dedicated a mace to Ninuruamudu for the life of łulgi. łulgi's successor,
Amar-Sin, left no trace on the Acropolis at Susa, but one of his officials
dedicated for him a bronze tablet addressed to Nungal. Finally, Amar-Sin's
successor, łu-Sin, left several bricks with his name and titles but no
mention of a specific temple or god; they may have come from a public
building, rather than a religious one. It is no surprise that InŠuŠinak
was surrounded by exclusively Mesopotamian deities, but it is surprising
that the first łimaŠkians who ruled at Susa before the fall of Ur imposed
no divinity from the plateau. Kindattu and his successor, Idadu I, built
or restored several sanctuaries dedicated to InŠuŠinak, as can be seen
from inscriptions of łilhak-InŠuŠinak (K÷nig, nos. 48, 48a, 48b, 39). In
the curse on a ritual basin dedicated to the temple of InŠuŠinak (Scheil,
1905, pp. 16-19) Idadu invoked only Mesopotamian divinities: SamaŠ, IŠtar,
and Sin. During the troubled period that followed, the various łimaŠkian
rulers of Susa, notably Tan-Ruhurater and his spouse, Mekubi, continued to
build temples for InŠuŠinak and for his consort at that time, Innana
(Scheil, 1913, pp. 24-26).

Direct evidence from the long sukkalmah period, broadly
confirmed by the inscriptions of łilhak-InŠuŠinak, shows that InŠuŠinak
continued to dominate the Acropolis at Susa, where he was surrounded by a
majority of Suso-Mesopotamian gods. Ebarat, Silhaha, and Atta-huŠu built
and restored the temple of Nanna. Atta-huŠu also built temples to such
Mesopotamian deities as Ninegal and Annunitum, as well as to Narundi.
Under Kutir-Nahhunte and Temti-Agun, InŠuŠinak shared a temple with Ea and
Enzag, and another was dedicated to IŠnikarab. Most rulers, however,
devoted their efforts to restoring the various monuments dedicated to
InŠuŠinak.

The Middle Elamite period. At the end of the sukkalmah
period the Elamite gods made a timid appearance in onomastics (Steve,
personal communication), but it was with the Kidinuids that they gained
official recognition in Susiana. Kidinu and Tepti-ahar styled themselves
"servant of KirmaŠir" (Steve, Gasche, and De Meyer, p. 92; Herrero, 1976,
p. 104), and in oath formulas Ruhurater was sometimes substituted for
łamaŠ.

The real change, however, can be seen in the works of the great king
UntaŠ-NapiriŠa. With the construction of [email protected]Š (┘[email protected]@ Zanb^l) he
broke with the past. First, the inscribed bricks found at the site (Steve,
1967) show that many Elamite divinities were introduced into Susiana at
that time. Half the twenty-six gods mentioned came from the
Suso-Mesopotamian pantheon; the other half were Elamite. This equal
division was reflected in the titles of the sovereign, who always called
himself "king of Anshan and of Susa" (or "of Susa and Anshan" in Akkadian
inscriptions). The reforms that he undertook went much farther than the
simple introduction of Elamite gods into the official cult in Susiana,
however.

In fact, the religious complex at ┘[email protected]@ Zanb^l is dominated by the
ziggurat, the two phases of which illustrate the change in the king's
political and religious orientation. The first phase consisted of a
structure with a square courtyard in which rose a small ziggurat; the high
temple (kikunnum) on the ziggurat was of glazed bricks and
dedicated only to InŠuŠinak, lord of the province. This first ziggurat was
destroyed, however, and the buildings around the courtyard incorporated
into the first story of the great ziggurat that has survived. It was then
dedicated jointly to NapiriŠa, the great god of Elam, and InŠuŠinak, the
great god of Susa (Ghirshman, 1966; Roche, 1986). In granting primacy to
NapiriŠa over InŠuŠinak in this second building phase the king intended to
show the primacy of Anshan over Susa.

Furthermore, UntaŠ-NapiriŠa introduced gods from the high plateau into
other cities of Susiana. At Susa he built a temple to Upurkuppak, stating
explicitly that previously this Elamite goddess had not possessed one
(K÷nig, no. 14). She was also worshiped at ┘[email protected]@ Pahn (in the
archeological literature distinguished from another site of the same name
by the designation K(huzistan) S(urvey)-102; Wright and Stolper, 1990) and
Gotwand (Steve, 1987, no. 5). MaŠti and Tepti had a temple at Deylam
(Vallat, 1983). UntaŠ-NapiriŠa also continued to dedicate temples to
various Suso-Mesopotamian divinities at Susa (A.╔.A. EłłANA, IM, Nabu,
NUN.EłłANA, etc.), where the clergy must have been disturbed by the
intrusion of gods from the high plateau.

This elamization of the Susian pantheon progressed under the łutrukids.
InŠuŠinak remained the principal divinity, receiving the largest number of
dedications, but NapiriŠa and sometimes KiririŠa took precedence over him.
For example, the eighteen known names of members of the royal family
include as elements divine names, those of the three principal Susan
divinities (InŠuŠinak, IŠnikarab, and Lagamal) but otherwise only of
Elamite divinities. On one stele (K÷nig, no. 54) łilhak-InŠuŠinak
mentioned a dozen deities, of whom only Nannar was of Mesopotamian origin.

The Neo-Elamite period. The elamizing trend continued until the
fall of Elam. After his victory at Susa AŠŠurbanipal carried off the
statues of nineteen deities, which he listed by name; all had apparently
Susan Elamite names. Despite the misleading spellings, the names of
several deities are recognizable, including those with the most prestige:
InŠuŠinak, Simut, Lagamal, Pinigir, Hutran, and KirmaŠir (Aynard, pp.
54-55).

In the Neo-Elamite period, although the principal divinities in the
pantheon (InŠuŠinak, NapiriŠa, Lagamal, Pinigir, Nahhunte, etc.) continued
to be honored, lesser known or previously unknown gods came to the fore,
among them MaŠti and Tepti at [email protected]^r, łaŠum at Kesat, and łati and Lali
(among many others) at Susa. The most popular god was Hu(m)ban, who had
been mentioned second in the list of gods in the treaty of Naram-Sin. In
this period his name appeared as an element in half the royal names and in
many other names as well (Scheil, 1907). He did not, however, have a
temple at Susa. All these gods were thus essentially Elamite; even the
Mesopotamian name of the goddess DIL.BAT, to whom łilhak-InŠuŠinak
dedicated a temple, could actually have been an epithet for the goddess
MaŠti.

In summary, in the Old Elamite period most of the divinities honored at
Susa were Suso-Mesopotamian. The only real exception was Narundi, and it
could be asked whether she was not also Mesopotamian (or "Babylonian," as
surmised by Genouillac, 1905, p. 14) or, rather, Susan; her cult is
already documented for the period of ManiŠtusu, and she is mentioned
before InŠuŠinak in the treaty of Naram-Sin. She is next attested in the
curses of Puzur-InŠuŠinak. Finally, Atta-huŠu dedicated a temple to her.
Nevertheless, she subsequently disappeared from Elamite documentation,
only to reappear in the Mesopotamian texts, where she was identified as
the sister of the seven great gods or as the wife of the Igigi. The
Elamite gods ługu and Enzag are attested only once. Mesopotamian dominance
ended with the Middle Elamite period, when gods from the plateau began to
invade Susiana, a trend that continued to accelerate until the end of
Elamite history. Although at first InŠuŠinak remained the principal deity
in this pantheon, beginning with the political and religious reforms of
UntaŠ-NapiriŠa he had to cede first place to NapiriŠa, the god of Anshan,
and sometimes to the latter's consort, KiririŠa. Anshan predominated not
only over Susiana but also over the other geopolitical entities that
constituted Elam; for example, in the time of łilhak-InŠuŠinak Hutran of
Awan was identified as the son of NapiriŠa and KiririŠa, the Anshanite
divine couple.

The pantheon exactly reflected the political situation: The Elamite
kings installed in Susiana became semitized, then, beginning with
UntaŠ-NapiriŠa, progressively elamized the province, to which Elam was
eventually reduced.

Nevertheless, any modern reconstruction of the Elamite pantheon must of
necessity be full of errors, largely because the sources come mainly from
Susiana. Anshan has furnished only a few relevant documents. It is known
that Siwepalar-huppak built a temple there (Stolper, 1982), but it is not
known for what god. Much later HutelutuŠ-InŠuŠinak dedicated a sanctuary
jointly to NapiriŠa, KiririŠa, InŠuŠinak, and Simut (M. Lambert, 1972;
Reiner, 1973). As for later economic texts (Stolper, 1984), they include
names with divine elements like Huban, Hutran, Pinigir, and InŠuŠinak. The
information from Liyan is equally slight: From a dedication of
Simut-wartaŠ to KiririŠa and several Middle Elamite II and III bricks
inscribed to NapiriŠa, KiririŠa, and the Bahahutip gods (Peézard, 1914),
it seems that KiririŠa was the tutelary goddess of the place.

Places of worship.

Two broad categories of ritual site can be distinguished: open-air
sanctuaries and buildings. In the first category three merit special
attention: [email protected]@n, ╚za/[email protected]^r, and NaqŠ-e Rostam.

At [email protected]@n (Seidl, 1986) a relief was carved at the top of a cliff,
probably in the 17th century B.C.E. The principal scene includes a god
seated on a throne formed by a human-headed serpent, an animal attribute
of NapiriŠa (not InŠuŠinak, pace de Miroschedji, 1981); he holds in his
hands the rod and the disk, symbols of supreme power, from which gush
forth the waters of life. He is surrounded by seven figures, of whom one
goddess, wearing a horned tiara, is probably his consort, KiririŠa. To the
left is another scene, perhaps from the Neo-Elamite period, of a
procession composed of three superimposed ranks of praying figures
descending toward the principal scene.

The rock reliefs at ╚za/[email protected]^r are divided into two groups, those at
ł[email protected][email protected] southwest of ╚za and those at [email protected] Farah to the
northwest (Vanden Berghe, 1963; De Waele, 1981). Each includes several
ritual scenes: processions, musicians, animal sacrifices, and the like. It
seems that the images preceded the accompanying inscriptions (K÷nig, nos.
75-76), which are of the late Neo-Elamite period, the first half of the
6th century B.C.E.

Although very badly mutilated, the Elamite rock reliefs at NaqŠ-e
Rostam (Seidl, 1986) illustrate the persistence of holy sites. To one
scene carved in the Old Elamite period Neo-Elamite artists have added two
figures, probably the king and the queen, but this group has been largely
obliterated by a relief of the Sasanian king [email protected] II (276-93 C.E.). In
between four Achaemenid sovereigns (Darius I, Xerxes, Artaxerxes I, and
Darius II) had their tombs dug into the cliff, and subsequently several
other Sasanian kings added reliefs to the site. NaqŠ-e Rostam thus
remained an important religious site for more than two millennia.

These three examples of open-air sanctuaries show that the Elamites
visited holy places in procession, in order to perform their rites. It is
not impossible that ritual sites for the general population were always
open. At the best-known religious complex, ┘[email protected]@ Zanb^l, the buildings
are relatively small and must have been accessible only to the clergy and
the royal family; on the other hand, between the second and third
enclosure walls a large space was left free of all construction and could
have accommodated large numbers of faithful during the most important
ceremonies.

At Susa remains of religious architecture from the Elamite period are
poor, probably because the relevant levels were seriously damaged by later
occupations. The only material evidence that has survived is the Old
Elamite temples of InŠuŠinak and Ninhursag, flanking a mass that could
have been the ziggurat (de Mecquenem, 1911), and a small square temple
built by łutruk-Nahhunte II (Amiet, no. 380). Nevertheless, various
documents permit reconstruction of this religious complex. Aside from the
Elamite dedications, there is a bronze model (inscribed sßit ŠamŠi
"sunrise") of an ablution ceremony with two nude priests surrounded by
various buildings and monuments (Gauthier). Two Mesopotamian documents are
even more explicit: a relief from the palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh,
probably representing the city of Susa (Amiet, no. 430), and a narrative
of the sack of Susa by AŠŠurbanipal (Aynard, pp. 53-59). These disparate
sources of information permit a schematic reconstruction for the period
best documented by the texts, that of łilhak-InŠuŠinak (though the complex
could not have differed fundamentally in other periods). On the acropolis
(uru.an.na/alimelu) a sacred quarter (kizzum) was
reserved for sanctuaries. It was dominated by the ziggurat
(zagratume), a tower of several stories. At the top of the ziggurat
the high temple (kukunnum) was decorated with one or two pairs of
horns, and at the base of the ziggurat was the low temple (haŠtu).
Nearby rose a monumental gate (hiel, sippu). The entire
ziggurat complex was set in a sacred grove (husa). Although the
temples (siyan) of the main gods were built close by, some, like
the "exterior temple" (kumpum kiduia), were built on the Apadana
(outside the kizzum). The latter building, which contained the
suhter, a chapel for effigies of members of the royal family
(Grillot, 1983), seems to have played a more political than religious
role, however. It is probable that every important Elamite city possessed
a similar complex, though probably smaller than the one at Susa.

It is curious that the word "ziggurat" (Elamite zagratume; no
word borrowed from Akkadian has the suffix -me) is never attested
for Susa. The only two ziggurats mentioned explicitly in Elamite texts are
those at ┘[email protected]@ Zanb^l (Steve, 1967) and ┘[email protected]@ Pahn (Wright and Stolper).
As for haŠtu, although the word is documented in only one
inscription (K÷nig, no. 48), it is the text in which łilhak-InŠuŠinak
enumerated eighteen Elamite kings, from the Old Elamite II period to his
own immediate predecessors, who had built or restored the haŠtu,
which demonstrates the importance of this building. It is apparent that in
Elamite inscriptions a single element could designate a whole complex; for
example, whenever a kukunnum is mentioned it is plausible to deduce
the presence of a ziggurat. By analogy, therefore, the "temple of the
grove" may have represented the entire religious complex associated with
death. As łilhak-InŠuŠinak boasted of having restored about fifteen
"temples of the grove" throughout the country, the cities mentioned
probably possessed religious complexes similar to the one in Susa.

Most of the important elements in this schematic reconstruction have
been found at ┘[email protected]@ Zanb^l, where the ziggurat dominates the sacred
precinct known as siyan-kuk. All the temples, except that of Nusku,
were built within the second enclosure wall, some of them abutting the
first enclosure wall, which surrounds the ziggurat. The ziggurat, an
essential element of the complex, was built on an earlier foundation 105
m2 and must originally have had five stories (Ghirshman, 1966), the fifth
being the kukunnum, constructed of glazed bricks imitating silver,
gold, obsidian, and alabaster (Steve 1967, nos. 1, 31-32). It was
surrounded by a wall against which three chapels were erected on the outer
south side. On the north the wall was interrupted by the temples of
IŠnikarab and KiririŠa, whereas that of NapiriŠa was connected to it. In
the space between this wall and a second wall the temples of several gods
were built. In order from the southeast to the northeast they were the
temples of Pinikir, Adad and łala, łimut and Nin-ali, the Napratep gods,
and after a wide interval that of HiŠmitik and Ruhuratir. Not all these
buildings were on the same plan, but all were of relatively modest
dimensions.

Religious buildings originally of mud brick were gradually restored
with baked brick; a few among them were partially or entirely covered with
glazed brick beginning in the reign of łutruk-Nahhunte I, who even claimed
(K÷nig, no. 17) to be the first to have used this luxury material. The
majority of those that have been excavated contain votive inscriptions,
but the statues of gods mentioned in the texts have rarely been recovered.

Religious life.

The essential role of the gods was to give life, to preserve it as long
as possible, and finally to take it back, accompanying the dead to the
other world. These different aspects of the divine prerogative can be
illustrated by many examples. For example, several cylinder seals found at
┘[email protected]@ Zanb^l are inscribed "It is for the god (to give) life; it is for
the king to save it" (Reiner, 1970b, p. 134). Humban-numena declared that
"from the bosom of his mother NapiriŠa and InŠuŠinak created his name"
(Steve, 1987, no. 3). Throughout Elamite history royal dedications show
that the kings built temples to protect their own lives and sometimes
those of the entire royal family. The simplest formula in such texts is
"I, so-and-so, have built such-and-such a sanctuary and, for my life, I
have offered it to such-and-such a god." But more specific requests were
addressed to different divinities for a long and favorable and happy
reign, for long life, and for a prosperous lineage (Grillot, 1982).

Nevertheless, death seems to have been the principal preoccupation of
the Elamites. Most religious buildings were connected with the cult of the
dead, and the principal gods were closely associated with the passage of
the dead into the next world. The association of the grove with the
funerary cult is certain from AŠŠurbanipal's narration of the sack of
Susa: "Their secret groves, where no foreigner had penetrated, where no
foreigner had trampled the underbrush, my soldiers entered and saw their
secrets; they destroyed them by fire. The tombs of their kings, ancient
and recent . . . I have devastated, I destroyed them, I exposed them to
the sun, and I carried off their bones to the country of AŠŠur" (Aynard,
1957, pp. 56-57). Furthermore, the relief from Nineveh that probably
represents the Acropolis at Susa (Amiet, no. 430) shows that the religious
complex was built in a grove.

The importance of the temple in the grove is also illustrated by a
stele of łilhak-InŠuŠinak (K÷nig, no. 48), in the inscription on which the
king claimed to have restored about twenty temples throughout the empire,
the majority of them "temples of the grove." In the same inscription he
enumerated eighteen of his predecessors who had restored the haŠtu
of InŠuŠinak at Susa, suggesting a relation between these two important
elements of the kizzum. Although most of these temples were
dedicated to InŠuŠinak, some were dedicated to Lagamal, Suhsipa, and
NapiriŠa. KiririŠa and InŠuŠinak had temples in the grove at ┘[email protected]@ Zanb^l
(Steve, 1967, nos. 25, 34; Grillot and Vallat, 1978, p. 83). At ┘[email protected]@
Pahn (KS-3) łilhak-InŠusinak built one for InŠuŠinak and Lagamal (Stolper,
1978), and in his account of his Elamite campaign AŠŠurbanipal mentioned a
grove of Manziniri, a god unattested elsewhere (W. G. Lambert, 1989).

The gateway may have symbolized the entrance of the dead person into
the next world. The one represented on the Nineveh relief is surmounted by
three figures in the posture of prayer, which recalls an epithet of
KiririŠa: "lady of life, who has authority over the grove, the gateway,
and he who prays" (Grillot and Vallat, 1984, p. 22). The gods to whom
these gateways were dedicated were those most closely associated with the
netherworld: InŠuŠinak (K÷nig, nos. 35, 36, 40), IŠnikarab (K÷nig, no.
37), Lagamal (K÷nig, no. 30), and NapiriŠa and InŠuŠinak together (K÷nig,
no. 79). It was also at the gateway of InŠuŠinak that Puzur-InŠuŠinak
ordered the sacrifice of a sheep accompanied by chants, morning and
evening (Scheil, 1902, p. 5).

Although many gods were associated with the cult of the dead, three
played a particularly important role: InŠuŠinak, the weigher of souls, and
his two assistants, IŠnikarab and Lagamal. A few small funerary tablets
(Botteéro, pp. 393-401), though very badly preserved, give some idea of
the passage into the other world: The dead person, preceded by IŠnikarab
or Lagamal or both presents himself in the haŠtu (in the Akkadian
texts Šuttu, a synonym for haŠtu) before InŠuŠinak, who
decides his fate. This scene seems to be illustrated on a number of
cylinder seals, where it is commonly identified as a "presentation scene,"
even though it is more probably a depiction of the last judgment (Vallat,
1989).

After judgment the dead person was buried. Different types of burial,
from the simplest to the most elaborate, are attested from excavations in
Susiana (de Mecquenem, 1943-44). The corpse, wrapped in matting, could be
interred directly in the ground, with a few objects, particularly pottery
intended to receive funerary offerings. At different periods small tombs
were built of mud or baked brick and sometimes of both; they could be used
for single or multiple burials, the latter collective, as at Haft Tepe, or
successive, as at Susa. Sometimes a tomb, usually vaulted, was provided
with a shaft, which permitted successive burials of members of a single
family. In some secondary burials the long bones of the dead were
collected in large beakers and the skulls deposited in vases. Sometimes
tubs or coffins protected the corpses. These different types of burial
probably reflected the social status of the dead. The single feature
common to all burials was the presence of offerings, varying in richness
with the period and social class of the dead: from simple pottery to a
lavish funerary assemblage including jewels and weapons, cylinder seals,
and a variety of other objects, even chariot wheels (Amiet, no. 103).

It is curious, however, that very few Elamite royal tombs have been
discovered. The tomb at Haft Tepe was probably not that of Tepti-Ahar
(pace Negahban, 1990; Reiner, 1973), and the various rather austere tombs
at ┘[email protected]@ Zanb^l (Ghirshman, 1968) contain no element that would permit
them to be ascribed to anyone. As for Susa, it may be that the baked-brick
tomb in the vault of which the sßit ŠamŠi was found can be
attributed to łilhak-InŠuŠinak, but, as it was robbed in antiquity, this
attribution remains hypothetical. AŠŠurbanipal claimed, in the narrative
of his last campaign, to have destroyed the tombs of the Elamite kings
during the sack of Susa, and he may well have done so. Another element
also deserves consideration in connection with funerary types: Hermann
Gasche (personal communication) has pointed out that, contrary to Susan
(and Meso-potamian) practice, no tomb had been dug in the great houses of
the sukkalmah period, which were veritable small palaces that must
have sheltered the aristocracy. This absence could thus reflect typically
Elamite preference, as does the presence in certain contemporary tombs of
terracotta funerary masks (Ghirshman, 1962), perhaps the descendants of
the funerary busts discovered at ł[email protected] and dating from the łimaŠki
period (Hakemi, 1972).

Another prerogative of the gods was to confer and protect kingship.
Puzur-InŠuŠinak spoke of "the year when InŠuŠinak looked at him (and) gave
to him the four regions" (Scheil, 1908, p. 9). It was also InŠuŠinak who
conferred kingship upon Humban-numena and the latter's son UntaŠ-NapiriŠa
(K÷nig, nos. 4, no. 13), but it was Manzat who conferred it on Igi-halki
(Steve, 1987, no. 2).

In the Elamite pantheon goddesses played a more important role than
elsewhere. The enumeration of forty deities in the treaty of Naram-Sin
begins with Pinigir, goddess of love and procreation, who was worshiped
throughout Elamite history and had an aŠtam, or temple of
fertility; she was very frequently represented in art (Spycket, 1992). In
addition, various local divinities were goddesses: KiririŠa at Liyan,
Upurkupak at ┘[email protected]@ Pahn (KS-102) and Gotwand, MaŠti at [email protected]^r, Manzat
at Deh-e Now (q.v.).

The Elamite pantheon was formed from the combination of the pantheons
of the principal geopolitical entities that constituted Elam; it is not
therefore astonishing that different gods played the same role or
possessed the same attributes. Several gods and goddesses had the epithet
"great god," which it is probably correct to understand as "the supreme
god": InŠuŠinak, NapiriŠa, Humban, Nahhunte, KiririŠa, Manzat, and so on.
In addition, several deities were protectors of the gods (MaŠti, Napir),
of kings (InŠuŠinak, KiririŠa, Napir), or of Elam (Silir-katru). KiririŠa
and MaŠti were "mothers of the gods." Several deities were particularly
linked to death by the epithet lahakra (of death): InŠuŠinak,
KiririŠa, Upurkupak, and perhaps Ruhuratir and Tepti.

Although the Elamite sources, which do not include any mythological
texts, are not very informative on the character of the gods, a few
Mesopotamian texts help to fill this gap, though they often seem schematic
and artificial and are, for the most part, of late date. Sometimes they
even contradict Elamite information; for example, in Elam Nahhunte was
considered the sun god, but in a Mesopotamian text he is called the moon
god (Civil, 1974, p. 334). Nevertheless, identification in Akkadian texts
of Lagamal with Nergal (W. G. Lambert, 1980-83) and NapiriŠa with Ea
(Reiner, 1958, pp. 50-51) is not without foundation. Lagamal is indeed an
infernal deity, and, on the relief from [email protected]@[email protected], NapiriŠa is
identifiable by his throne, formed from a human-headed serpent; he also
holds as attributes of power the disk and the rod (forerunners of the orb
and scepter of Western monarchies), from which gush forth the living
waters. He thus seems the equivalent of Ea, Mesopotamian god of the
waters. On the other hand, Iabru, who was assimilated to Anu, is unknown
from the Elamite sources, and there is no evidence that Humban shared the
characteristics of Enlil. Finally, no Elamite epithet permits the
conclusion that any god was of warlike character, though the Mesopotamians
assimilated seven Elamite divinities to Ninurta (King, pls. 12 ll. 1-5, 11
l. 37, 24 l. 17).

Most non-Elamite texts inscribed on Elamite territories have been found
in Susiana, that is, the region nearest to Mesopotamia and most exposed to
Mesopotamian political and cultural influences. They include Sumerian and
Akkadian literarary tablets and royal inscriptions; letters; and literary,
legal, and administrative texts written in Sumerian and Akkadian by local
scribes. At the end of the 3rd millennium B.C.E. Susiana was ruled
successively by the kings of Akkad and Ur, and immigrants from Mesopotamia
may have settled there (Lambert, p. 57). At any rate the Mesopotamian
culture introduced in that period survived long after Meso-potamian
political control of Susa.

During the sukkalmah period (ca. 1970-1600 B.C.E.; see i, above)
Akkadian, a Semitic language, was used in Susa for letters, administrative
records, and legal transactions. Both it and Sumerian were also used in
royal inscriptions, chiefly on bricks, at Susa and Malyan (Mal^[email protected];
ancient Anshan, q.v.) in this period. Despite shifting relations between
Elam and Mesopotamia, Akkadian never completely disappeared from Susiana,
though changes did occur after the middle of the 2nd millennium (Lambert,
p. 54). Akkadian was taught and used by scholars, and, aside from such
trophies of war as the stele of Hammurabi, local versions of Mesopotamian
religious, scholarly, magical, medical, and divination texts have been
excavated, mainly at Susa and Haft Tepe (Kabnak). Beginning in the Ur III
period (2112-2004), Akkadian written in Elam exhibited distinctive
orthographic features (e.g., use of the sign ŠaÓ to write Ša
or Šaé and of ŠÝ instead of Ši) and uncommon
ideograms.

Scribal exercises in the form of lexical lists are found wherever
Mesopotamian culture was introduced, and many examples, some dating from
the Akkadian period (ca. 2350-2000 B.C.E.), have been found at Susa
(Cavigneaux, p. 612; Tanret, p. 139). Two fragments of exercise texts have
been found at Malyan (Stolper, 1982l, p. 57 n. 52). Mathematical texts
(van der Meer; Bruins and Rutten) written in Akkadian include some
sophisticated problems involving local, as well as "Akkadian," methods for
their solution (Friberg, p. 580). Literary texts include a single
bilingual religious text (in Sumerian and Akkadian), a medico-magical
text, eight divination texts, and two royal letters in Sumerian with
Akkadian translations, found all together at Susa and obviously written in
Elam (Labat and Edzard). They have been attributed to the late 15th or
early 14th centuries B.C.E. (Biggs and Stolper, p. 161). Some differ
little in content from texts in the Mesopotamian tradition; others have no
close parallels. Similarities in content, ductus, and orthography among
the omen texts from Susa, an omen text from Chogha Pahn (┘[email protected][email protected])
about 23 km ti the east, and an unpublished divinatory text from Haft Tepe
are proof of genuine scholarship in Susiana (Biggs and Stolper, pp.
160-62). In contrast to this wholly Mesopotamian literature, the so-called
"funerary texts" (Scheil, 1916; Dossin, pp. 88-91, 94) seem to represent
indigenous culture, perhaps specific to Susa or perhaps rendering in
Akkadian elements found more widely in Elamite territories.

Aside from a single bilingual (Akkadian and Elamite) inscription of
Puzur-InŠuŠinak and trilingual (Akkadian, Elamite, Old Persian)
inscriptions of the Achaemenid kings, official and royal inscriptions were
written in Sumerian and Akkadian during the sukkalmah period and in
Akkadian by the Middle Elamite kings InŠuŠinak-Šar-ilani (or
InŠuŠinak-sunkir-nappipir, the Elamite reading of the ideographic
rendering of his name) and Tepti-ahar and occasionally UntaŠ-NapiriŠa and
łutruk-Nahhunte. Throughout these periods, including the Achaemenid
period, the scribes copied and adapted classical Mesopotamian models and
phraseology for foundation deposits, rock inscriptions, steles, votive
inscriptions, and inscribed statues, bricks, and column bases found at
Susa, ┘[email protected] Zanb^l (q.v.), [email protected] (q.v.), and Haft Tepe (Scheil 1900;
idem, 1902; idem, 1905; idem, 1929; idem, 1933; idem, 1939; idem and
Gautier; Scheil and Legrain; Weissbach; Rutten, 1953; Steve 1987; Reiner;
Vallat, 1974a; idem, 1974b; idem, 1986; Malbrat-Laban, 1995). A few
letters from the sukkalmah period found at Susa are known only
through copies (Dossin, pp. 84-87); the remainder, as well as some legal
texts, are being prepared for publication by Leéon de Meyer, the present
author, and Florence Malbran-Labat. Along with orthographic and
morphological features common to all Akkadian texts written in Elam, these
letters reveal distinctive phraseology, a few unknown words, and names of
deities unattested elsewhere.

Two fragments of Sumerian administrative texts have been found at
Malyan (Stolper, 1982, p. 57 n. 52) and Ur III Sumerian administrative
texts at Susa. Hundreds of administrative and legal documents in Akkadian
have been excavated at Susa, Haft Tepe, and [email protected] Fandowa near Haft Tepe
(Scheil 1902; idem, 1930; idem, 1932; idem, 1933; idem, 1939; idem and
Gautier; Scheil and Legrain; Dossin; Herrero and Glassner 1990; idem,
1991; Beckman). In them are recorded events in the daily life of an
agricultural and pastoral society; for example, the Haft Tepe texts come
from the archives of a large estate over a few decades of the 14th century
(Glassner, p. 115). The longer examples reflect all kinds of transactions:
adoptions, inheritance, shares, grants, purchases, sales, farming leases,
formation of companies, loans, and securities. They combine well-attested
Sumero-Akkadian terminology with terms otherwise unknown, reflecting local
custom. Jurists underscored the unusual role played by the gods, in
particular the sun god, InŠuŠinak, and IŠmekarab; the importance of acting
"in good health and good faith," that is, in sound body and mind; the
divine wrath in store for offenders; and such penalties as the river
ordeal and corporal mutilation (Cuq, 1931 pp. 48-61). Most of these
documents, which cover the greater part of the sukkalmah period,
originated at Susa. The so-called "[email protected]^r texts," of which about fifteen
were part of legal archives from the early 14th century, probably
originated from a site in Susiana, perhaps Haft Tepe (Stolper, pp. 279-80;
pace Glassner, p. 117).